ABSTRACT
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the preferred treatment for severe aortic stenosis. Previous studies compare clinical outcomes of leading TAVR valves, but there is no evidence of cost-utility comparison, leaving a clinical information gap when selecting valves. Here we share a cost-utility analysis comparing the Sapien 3 (S3) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) and CoreValve Evolut R (ER) (Medtronic, Dublin, IR) across five clinical endpoints. Utility scores from patient surveys and clinical outcomes from the literature were used to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with successful procedure and postoperative complications for S3 and ER. A decision tree was constructed with rollback analysis to highlight the more cost-effective strategy. An incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) analysis was performed with a willingness to pay at $50,000. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to validate robustness of results and account for uncertainty. S3 was found to be more costly ($68,377 vs. $66,072), but more effective (1.87 vs . 1.66) compared with ER. An ICUR of 11,288.12 favored S3, making it the more cost-effective option with a moderate confidence of 73.68% in Monte Carlo analysis. Cost-utility analysis can be used to aid in healthcare economics decision-making when selecting between comparable technologies used for TAVR procedures.
