Background: The incremental cost-effectiveness of transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is ill-defined in high-risk patients where aortic valve replacement (AVR) is an option, and has not been ascertained outside a randomized controlled trial.
Methods: We developed a Markov model to examine the progression of patients between health states, defined as peri- and post-procedural, post-complication, and death. The mean and variance of risks, transition probabilities, utilities and cost of transapical TAVI, high-risk AVR, and medical management were derived from analysis of relevant registries. Outcome and cost were derived from 10,000 simulations. Sensitivity analyses further evaluated the impact of mortality, stroke, and other commonly observed outcomes.
Results: In the reference case, both transapical TAVI and high-risk AVR and TAVI were cost-effective when compared to medical management ($44,384/QALY and $42,637/QALY, respectively). Transapical TAVI failed to meet accepted criteria for incremental cost-effectiveness relative to AVR, which was the dominant strategy. In sensitivity analyses, the mortality rates related to the two strategies, the utilities post-AVR and post-transapical TAVI, and the cost of transapical TAVI, were the main drivers of model outcome.
Conclusion: Transapical TAVI did not satisfy current metrics of incremental cost-effectiveness relative to high-risk AVR in the reference case. However, it may provide net health benefits at acceptable cost in selected high-risk patients among whom AVR is the standard intervention.
Keywords: Aortic valve replacement; aortic stenosis; cost-effectiveness; transcatheter valve.