Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation vs. Aortic Valve Surgery in a Brazilian Public Health System (SUS) Hospital: Periprocedural Outcomes and Costs.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Saad Gabriel Prado, Cervone Alberto Collella, Delamain José Henrique, Belloti Vitor, Etges Ana Paula Beck da Silva, Perez Giullia Sarabando, Damiani Bruna Bronhara, Issa Mario, Samaan Farid, Ramos Auristela Isabel de Oliveira, Feres Fausto, Siqueira Dimytri Alexandre Alvim de
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a preferred treatment for severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). However, comparative data with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) within the Brazilian public health system (SUS) remain limited.
OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcomes and perform a cost-analysis of TAVI versus SAVR in SUS patients.
METHODS: This retrospective, single-center study evaluated clinical outcomes and direct medical costs, using a statistical significance threshold of 5%.
RESULTS: Between 01/2018 and 12/2022, 320 patients (139 TAVI, 181 SAVR) were included. TAVI patients were older (77.9 vs. 64.9 years, p<0.001) and had higher surgical risk (STS 3.62% vs. 1.64%, p<0.001). Mortality (2.9% vs. 5.0%) and stroke rates (1.4% vs. 3.3%) were numerically lower for TAVI, but not statistically significant. In a risk-adjusted composite outcome (death, stroke, re-hospitalization), TAVI showed potential superiority (5.8% vs. 12%, OR 2.68, 95% CI 1.04-7.65, p=0.05), though not statistically significant. TAVI was associated with a shorter hospital stay (2.0 vs. 8.0 days, p<0.001). TAVI's total cost was significantly higher than SAVR's (R$ 55,750.90 [52,345.30; 92,286.80] vs R$ 22,518.10 [19,130.60; 25,875.10, - p<0.001]).
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, TAVI displayed similar clinical outcomes compared to SAVR, while being performed on older patients with higher surgical risk. From an economic perspective, costs of TAVI treatment were significantly higher than SAVR, driven mainly by device costs, while in-hospital length of stay was significantly lower. With extended follow-up and reduced procedural costs, TAVI may become a cost-effective option in the SUS.
OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcomes and perform a cost-analysis of TAVI versus SAVR in SUS patients.
METHODS: This retrospective, single-center study evaluated clinical outcomes and direct medical costs, using a statistical significance threshold of 5%.
RESULTS: Between 01/2018 and 12/2022, 320 patients (139 TAVI, 181 SAVR) were included. TAVI patients were older (77.9 vs. 64.9 years, p<0.001) and had higher surgical risk (STS 3.62% vs. 1.64%, p<0.001). Mortality (2.9% vs. 5.0%) and stroke rates (1.4% vs. 3.3%) were numerically lower for TAVI, but not statistically significant. In a risk-adjusted composite outcome (death, stroke, re-hospitalization), TAVI showed potential superiority (5.8% vs. 12%, OR 2.68, 95% CI 1.04-7.65, p=0.05), though not statistically significant. TAVI was associated with a shorter hospital stay (2.0 vs. 8.0 days, p<0.001). TAVI's total cost was significantly higher than SAVR's (R$ 55,750.90 [52,345.30; 92,286.80] vs R$ 22,518.10 [19,130.60; 25,875.10, - p<0.001]).
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, TAVI displayed similar clinical outcomes compared to SAVR, while being performed on older patients with higher surgical risk. From an economic perspective, costs of TAVI treatment were significantly higher than SAVR, driven mainly by device costs, while in-hospital length of stay was significantly lower. With extended follow-up and reduced procedural costs, TAVI may become a cost-effective option in the SUS.