Journal of cardiology · 2023
Cost-effective analysis of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: A prospective multicenter study.
Многоцентровое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Amaki Makoto, Moriwaki Kensuke, Nakai Michikazu, Yamano Tetsuhiro, Okada Atsushi, Kanzaki Hideaki, Izumo Masaki, Usuku Hiroki, Onishi Tetsuari, Nagai Toshiyuki, Miyamoto Yoshihiro, Fujita Tomoyuki, Kawai Hiroya, Akashi Yoshihiro, Tsujita Kenichi, Matoba Satoaki, Kobayashi Junjiro, Izumi Chisato, Anzai Toshihisa
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) does not benefit all patients. We performed a prospective multicenter study to investigate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR in a Japanese cohort.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively enrolled 110 symptomatic patients with severe AS who underwent TAVR from five institutions. The quality of life measurement (QOL) was performed for each patient before and at 6 months after TAVR. Patients without an improvement in QOL at 6 months after TAVR were defined as non-responders. Pre-TAVR higher QOL, higher clinical frailty scale predicted the non-responders. Three models, 1) conservative treatment for all patients strategy, 2) TAVR for all patients strategy, and 3) TAVR for a selected patient strategy who is expected to be a responder, were simulated. Lifetime cost-effectiveness was estimated using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. In comparison to conservative therapy for all patients, ICER was estimated to be 5,765,800 yen/QALY for TAVR for all patients and 2,342,175 yen/QALY for TAVR for selected patient strategy patients, which is less than the commonly accepted ICER threshold of 5,000,000 yen/QALY.
CONCLUSIONS: TAVR for selected patient strategy model is more cost-effective than TAVR for all patient strategy without reducing QOL in the Japanese healthcare system. TAVR for selected patient strategy has potential benefit for optimizing the TAVR treatment in patients with high frailty and may direct our resources toward beneficial interventions.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively enrolled 110 symptomatic patients with severe AS who underwent TAVR from five institutions. The quality of life measurement (QOL) was performed for each patient before and at 6 months after TAVR. Patients without an improvement in QOL at 6 months after TAVR were defined as non-responders. Pre-TAVR higher QOL, higher clinical frailty scale predicted the non-responders. Three models, 1) conservative treatment for all patients strategy, 2) TAVR for all patients strategy, and 3) TAVR for a selected patient strategy who is expected to be a responder, were simulated. Lifetime cost-effectiveness was estimated using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. In comparison to conservative therapy for all patients, ICER was estimated to be 5,765,800 yen/QALY for TAVR for all patients and 2,342,175 yen/QALY for TAVR for selected patient strategy patients, which is less than the commonly accepted ICER threshold of 5,000,000 yen/QALY.
CONCLUSIONS: TAVR for selected patient strategy model is more cost-effective than TAVR for all patient strategy without reducing QOL in the Japanese healthcare system. TAVR for selected patient strategy has potential benefit for optimizing the TAVR treatment in patients with high frailty and may direct our resources toward beneficial interventions.