A comparative profitability analysis of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in a high-volume French hospital.
Aortic valve disease, percutaneous intervention
Cardiovascular diseases
Economical/cost-effectiveness
Journal
Health economics review
ISSN: 2191-1991
Titre abrégé: Health Econ Rev
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101583209
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Feb 2019
14 Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
17
10
2018
accepted:
07
02
2019
entrez:
15
2
2019
pubmed:
15
2
2019
medline:
15
2
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Current scientific guidelines have extended the indication for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to patients who present an intermediate risk for surgery and have been so far considered for conventional surgery. We previously demonstrated that the TAVR procedure generated profits despite elevated costs, but comparison with surgery has not been performed. The objective of this study was to assess the profitability of the TAVR procedure compared with conventional surgery in a high-volume French hospital. Consecutive patients eligible for transfemoral TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) were included retrospectively in this single-centre study between September 2014 and December 2015. The primary endpoint was the profitability of each procedure (defined as the ratio between the profit and total revenues), calculated for each patient. Secondary composite endpoints included major adverse events in the 30 days following procedure and breakdown of costs. Two hundred and thirty-eight patients were included in the TAVR group and 341 in the SAVR group. TAVR patients presented higher operative risk scores and more comorbidities. Compared with SAVR, TAVR was associated with higher profits (€2732 ± 1768 per patient vs. €2177 ± 2437 per patient, P < 0.001) but also higher costs (€27,778 ± 4961 vs. €17,813 ± 6071, P < 0.001) resulting in lower profitability (9.3 ± 5.7% vs. 11.7 ± 10.1%, P < 0.001). The price of the bioprosthesis represented 70% of the TAVR total cost. TAVR performed in carefully selected patients was associated with higher profits than SAVR, but also higher costs resulting in lower profitability.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Current scientific guidelines have extended the indication for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to patients who present an intermediate risk for surgery and have been so far considered for conventional surgery. We previously demonstrated that the TAVR procedure generated profits despite elevated costs, but comparison with surgery has not been performed. The objective of this study was to assess the profitability of the TAVR procedure compared with conventional surgery in a high-volume French hospital. Consecutive patients eligible for transfemoral TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) were included retrospectively in this single-centre study between September 2014 and December 2015. The primary endpoint was the profitability of each procedure (defined as the ratio between the profit and total revenues), calculated for each patient. Secondary composite endpoints included major adverse events in the 30 days following procedure and breakdown of costs.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Two hundred and thirty-eight patients were included in the TAVR group and 341 in the SAVR group. TAVR patients presented higher operative risk scores and more comorbidities. Compared with SAVR, TAVR was associated with higher profits (€2732 ± 1768 per patient vs. €2177 ± 2437 per patient, P < 0.001) but also higher costs (€27,778 ± 4961 vs. €17,813 ± 6071, P < 0.001) resulting in lower profitability (9.3 ± 5.7% vs. 11.7 ± 10.1%, P < 0.001). The price of the bioprosthesis represented 70% of the TAVR total cost.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
TAVR performed in carefully selected patients was associated with higher profits than SAVR, but also higher costs resulting in lower profitability.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30762171
doi: 10.1186/s13561-019-0223-0
pii: 10.1186/s13561-019-0223-0
pmc: PMC6734332
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
6Références
Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2008 Feb;101(2):126-32
pubmed: 18398398
N Engl J Med. 2011 Jun 9;364(23):2187-98
pubmed: 21639811
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012 Oct;42(4):S1-44
pubmed: 22922698
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Oct 9;60(15):1438-54
pubmed: 23036636
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Dec 25;60(25):2683-92
pubmed: 23122802
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Jul 15;64(2):129-40
pubmed: 25011716
Am J Cardiol. 2015 Apr 15;115(8):1116-22
pubmed: 25726383
Am J Cardiol. 2016 Mar 1;117(5):813-9
pubmed: 26742477
N Engl J Med. 2016 Apr 28;374(17):1609-20
pubmed: 27040324
Circulation. 2017 Mar 21;135(12):1123-1132
pubmed: 28104716
Am J Cardiol. 2017 Jun 1;119(11):1821-1831
pubmed: 28388992
J Am Heart Assoc. 2017 Apr 24;6(4):null
pubmed: 28438738
Eur Heart J. 2017 Sep 21;38(36):2717-2726
pubmed: 28605423
Eur Heart J. 2017 Sep 21;38(36):2739-2791
pubmed: 28886619
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018 May;155(5):1978-1988.e1
pubmed: 29454487
Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2018 Aug - Sep;111(8-9):534-540
pubmed: 29551368