Is transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) a cost-effective treatment in patients who are ineligible for surgical aortic valve replacement? A systematic review of economic evaluations

Abstract

Despite notable differences in modeling approach, under the thresholds defined by using either the local threshold value or that recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) threshold value, each study showed that TAVI was likely to be a cost-effective intervention for patients ineligible for SAVR.

The cost effectiveness of transesophageal echocardiography for pediatric cardiac surgery: a systematic review

“…A simple point scoring system was used to assess the reporting standards by providing one point for each ‘yes’ and zero for all other possible answers (i.e., ‘no’, ‘unsure’, ‘not clear from text’, ‘not applicable’). This points‐based scoring has been described previously .…”

Cost Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Compared with Medical Management or Surgery for Patients with Aortic Stenosis

“…A recent systematic review used one of these checklists to assess the quality of CEA among six studies comparing TAVR and medical treatment [39]. The checklist used, developed by Drummond et al [61], comprises 35 questions divided into three sections which assess study design, data collection and model parameters, analyses performed, and interpretation of results.…”

“…Five previous systematic reviews covered the period from January 2000 to November 2012 [39][40][41][42][43], therefore we particularly sought additional papers from November 2012 to June 2014, limited to studies published in English and in humans. The following keywords were used: 'cost-effectiveness analysis' or 'cost-benefit analysis' or 'cost-utility analysis' and 'TAVI' or 'TAVR' or 'transcatheter aortic valve implantation' or 'transcatheter aortic valve replacement' (and their expansions).…”

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Lower-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis

“…126 TAVI was shown to be cost-effective when compared with conservative treatment in symptomatic patients who are not candidates for SAVR, [127][128][129][130][131][132] and it was even more cost-effective in the subgroup of anatomically inoperable than medically inoperable patients 133 and in those with a lower burden of noncardiac comorbidities. 134 Compared with SAVR in operable high surgical risk patients, evidence of cost-effectiveness of TAVI is much less consistent.…”