Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team · 2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement Versus Redo Surgical Mitral Valve Replacement for Degenerated Bioprosthetic Mitral Valve.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pliakos Elina E, Reddy Kriyana, Atluri Pavan, Herrmann Howard C, Fiorilli Paul, Alkhouli Mohamad, Baron Suzanne J, Giri Jay, Nathan Ashwin S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves (MVs) are associated with significant morbidity and health care expenditures. For certain patients, valve-in-valve transcatheter MV replacement (ViV TMVR) has emerged as a promising treatment option due to fewer complications and shorter hospital length of stay when compared with redo surgical MV replacement (redo-SMVR). We constructed a decision-analytic model comparing the cost-effectiveness of ViV TMVR to redo-SMVR for the management of degenerated bioprosthetic valves.
METHODS: Cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating deaths averted and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Uncertainty was addressed by plotting cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves for various willingness-to-pay thresholds. The main outcome was ICERs defined as United States (US) dollars/deaths averted.
RESULTS: In the base case analysis, the cost associated with ViV TMVR was estimated at $87,724 with a 0.93 probability of survival at 1 month. For the redo-SMVR strategy, the cost was $104,444, and the probability of survival at 1 month was 0.89. Overall, ViV TMVR resulted in savings of $418,001 per death averted (ICER, -$418,001/death averted). In cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, ViV TMVR was cost-effective in 83% to 88% of simulations for a willingness-to-pay threshold ranging from $0 to $100,000.
CONCLUSIONS: ViV TMVR is an effective strategy that may result in significant health care savings for the management of degenerated bioprosthetic valves.
METHODS: Cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating deaths averted and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Uncertainty was addressed by plotting cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves for various willingness-to-pay thresholds. The main outcome was ICERs defined as United States (US) dollars/deaths averted.
RESULTS: In the base case analysis, the cost associated with ViV TMVR was estimated at $87,724 with a 0.93 probability of survival at 1 month. For the redo-SMVR strategy, the cost was $104,444, and the probability of survival at 1 month was 0.89. Overall, ViV TMVR resulted in savings of $418,001 per death averted (ICER, -$418,001/death averted). In cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, ViV TMVR was cost-effective in 83% to 88% of simulations for a willingness-to-pay threshold ranging from $0 to $100,000.
CONCLUSIONS: ViV TMVR is an effective strategy that may result in significant health care savings for the management of degenerated bioprosthetic valves.