Background Prior studies of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primarily on a single balloon-expandable system. Objectives The goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. Methods We performed a formal economic analysis on the basis of individual, patient-level data from the CoreValve U.S. High Risk pivotal trial. Empirical data regarding survival and quality of life (QOL) over 2 years, and medical resource use and hospital costs through 12 months were used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime medical costs in order to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR from a U.S. perspective. Results Relative to SAVR, TAVR reduced initial length of stay an average of 4.4 days, decreased the need for rehabilitation services at discharge, and resulted in superior 1-month QOL. Index admission and projected lifetime costs were higher with TAVR than with SAVR (differences $11,260 and $17,849 per patient, respectively), whereas TAVR was projected to provide a lifetime gain of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; 0.41 life-years [LYs]) with 3% discounting. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were $55,090 per QALY gained and $43,114 per LY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that a reduction in the initial cost of TAVR by ~$1,650 would lead to an ICER <$50,000/QALY gained. Conclusions In a high-risk clinical trial population, TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis provided meaningful clinical benefits compared with SAVR, with incremental costs considered acceptable by current U.S. standards. With expected modest reductions in the cost of index TAVR admissions, the value of TAVR compared with SAVR in this patient population would become high.

A pproximately 6% of all American adults suffer from coronary artery disease (CAD), with estimated total annual costs in excess of $200 billion.1 Coronary revascularization procedures, including percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), account for nearly $12 billion per year in direct costs alone.Background-The Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial demonstrated that in patients with 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) was associated with a lower rate of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization compared with percutaneous coronary revascularization with drug-eluting stents (DES-PCI)). The longterm cost-effectiveness of these strategies is unknown. Methods and Results-Between 2005 and 2007, 1800 patients with left main or 3-vessel coronary artery disease were randomized to CABG (n=897) or DES-PCI (n=903). Costs were assessed from a US perspective, and health state utilities were evaluated with the EuroQOL questionnaire. A patient-level microsimulation model based on the 5-year in-trial data was used to extrapolate costs, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy over a lifetime horizon. Although initial procedural costs were $3415 per patient lower with CABG, total hospitalization costs were $10 036 per patient higher. Over the next 5 years, follow-up costs were higher with DES-PCI as a result of more frequent hospitalizations, revascularization procedures, and higher medication costs. Over a lifetime horizon, CABG remained more costly than DES-PCI, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was favorable ($16 537 per quality-adjusted life-year gained) and remained <$20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year in most bootstrap replicates. Results were consistent across a wide range of assumptions about the long-term effect of CABG versus DES-PCI on events and costs. In patients with left main disease or a SYNTAX score ≤22, however, DES-PCI was economically dominant compared with CABG, although these findings were less certain. Conclusions-For most patients with 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, CABG is a clinically and economically attractive revascularization strategy compared with DES-PCI. However, among patients with less complex disease, DES-PCI may be preferred on both clinical and economic grounds.

Background In patients at increased surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis is associated with improved 1-year survival compared with AVR. However, elderly patients may be just as concerned with quality of life improvement as with prolonged survival as a goal of treatment. Objectives To compare the health status outcomes for patients treated with either self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Methods Between 2011 and 2012, 795 patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk were randomized to TAVR or AVR in the CoreValve US Pivotal Trial. Health status was assessed at baseline, 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), SF-12, and EQ-5D; growth curve models were used to examine changes over time. Results Over the 1-year follow-up period, disease-specific and generic health status improved substantially for both treatment groups. At 1-month, there was a significant interaction between the benefit of TAVR over AVR and access site. Among surviving patients eligible for iliofemoral (IF) access, there was a clinically relevant early benefit with TAVR across all disease-specific and generic health status measures. Among the non-IF cohort; however, most health status measures were similar for TAVR and AVR, although there was a trend toward early benefit with TAVR on the SF-12 physical health scale. There were no consistent differences in health status between TAVR and AVR at the later time points. Conclusions Health status improved substantially in surviving patients with increased surgical risk who were treated with either self-expanding TAVR or AVR. TAVR via the IF route was associated with better early health status compared with AVR, but there was no early health status benefit with non-IF TAVR compared with AVR.