A cost-utility analysis of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement for the treatment of aortic stenosis in the population with intermediate surgical risk

Objective: Although transcatheter aortic valve implantation has been shown to be noninferior to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, the cost-effectiveness of this strategy in this population is unknown. Our objective was to conduct a cost-utility analysis comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with surgical aortic valve replacement in the population with intermediate risk severe aortic stenosis. Methods: A fully probabilistic Markov model with 30-day cycles was constructed from the Canadian third-party payer's perspective to estimate the difference in cost and effectiveness (measured as quality-adjusted life years) of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for intermediate-risk patients over a lifetime time horizon, discounted at 1.5% per annum. Clinical trial data from The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve 2 informed the efficacy inputs. Costs (adjusted to 2016 Canadian dollars) were obtained from the Canadian Institute of Health Information and the Ontario Schedule of Benefits. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Results: In the base-case analysis, total lifetime costs for transcatheter aortic valve implantation were $10,548 higher than surgical aortic valve replacement but added 0.23 quality-adjusted life years, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $46,083/ quality-adjusted life-years gained. Deterministic 1-way analyses showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was sensitive to rates of complications and cost of the transcatheter aortic valve implantation prosthesis. There was moderate-to-high parameter uncertainty; transcatheter aortic valve implantation was the preferred option in only 52.7% and 55.4% of the simulations at a $50,000 and $100,000 per quality-adjusted life years willingness-to-pay thresholds, respectively. Conclusions: On the basis of current evidence, transcatheter aortic valve implantation may be cost-effective for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in patients with intermediate surgical risk. There remains moderate-to-high uncertainty surrounding the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.