Cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low risk of surgical mortality in Sweden

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has shown similar or improved clinical outcomes compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at low risk for surgical mortality. This cost-utility analysis compared TAVI with SAPI...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Konrad Nilsson, Stefan James, Oskar Angerås, Jenny Backes, Henrik Bjursten, Pascal Candolfi, Mattias Götberg, Henrik Hagström, Chiara Malmberg, Niels Erik Nielsen, Archita Sarmah, Magnus Settergren, Tom Bromilow
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Upsala Medical Society 2025-04-01
Series:Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ujms.net/index.php/ujms/article/view/10741/19351
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849713043212075008
author Konrad Nilsson
Stefan James
Oskar Angerås
Jenny Backes
Henrik Bjursten
Pascal Candolfi
Mattias Götberg
Henrik Hagström
Chiara Malmberg
Niels Erik Nielsen
Archita Sarmah
Magnus Settergren
Tom Bromilow
author_facet Konrad Nilsson
Stefan James
Oskar Angerås
Jenny Backes
Henrik Bjursten
Pascal Candolfi
Mattias Götberg
Henrik Hagström
Chiara Malmberg
Niels Erik Nielsen
Archita Sarmah
Magnus Settergren
Tom Bromilow
author_sort Konrad Nilsson
collection DOAJ
description Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has shown similar or improved clinical outcomes compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at low risk for surgical mortality. This cost-utility analysis compared TAVI with SAPIEN 3 versus SAVR in symptomatic severe aortic stenosis patients at low risk of surgical mortality from the perspective of the Swedish healthcare system. Methods: A published, two-stage, Markov-based cost-utility model that captured clinical outcomes from the Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated according to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART) registry (2018–2020) was adapted from the perspective of the Swedish healthcare system using local general population mortality, utility and costs data. The model had a lifetime horizon. Model outputs included changes in direct healthcare costs and health-related quality of life from using TAVI as compared with SAVR. Results: TAVI with SAPIEN 3 resulted in lifetime costs per patient of 484,142 SEK Swedish krona (SEK) and lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient of 7.16, whilst SAVR resulted in lifetime costs and QALYs per patient of 457,625 SEK and 6.81 QALYs, respectively. Compared with SAVR, TAVI offered an incremental improvement of +0.35 QALY per patient at an increased cost of +26,517 SEK per patient over a lifetime horizon, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 76,532 SEK per QALY gained. Conclusion: TAVI with SAPIEN 3 is a cost-effective option versus SAVR for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at low risk for surgical mortality treated in the Swedish healthcare setting. These findings may inform policy decisions in Sweden for the management of this patient group.
format Article
id doaj-art-9738f3f31c624c7ba1dd75c0f01a93c6
institution DOAJ
issn 0300-9734
2000-1967
language English
publishDate 2025-04-01
publisher Upsala Medical Society
record_format Article
series Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences
spelling doaj-art-9738f3f31c624c7ba1dd75c0f01a93c62025-08-20T03:14:05ZengUpsala Medical SocietyUpsala Journal of Medical Sciences0300-97342000-19672025-04-0113011010.48101/ujms.v130.1074110741Cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low risk of surgical mortality in SwedenKonrad Nilsson0Stefan James1Oskar Angerås2Jenny Backes3Henrik Bjursten4Pascal Candolfi5Mattias Götberg6Henrik Hagström7Chiara Malmberg8Niels Erik Nielsen9Archita Sarmah10Magnus Settergren11Tom Bromilow12Department of Medical Sciences, Cardiology and Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala University, Uppsala, SwedenDepartment of Medical Sciences, Cardiology and Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala University, Uppsala, SwedenDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, SwedenDepartment of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, SwedenDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Lund University, Lund, SwedenEdwards Lifesciences SA, Nyon, SwitzerlandDepartment of Cardiology, Skåne University Hospital, Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, SwedenDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, SwedenIHE – The Swedish Institute for Health Economics, Stockholm, SwedenDepartment of Cardiology, Heart Centre, University Hospital, Linköping, SwedenEdwards Lifesciences SA, Nyon, SwitzerlandHeart and Vascular Unit, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, SwedenYork Health Economics Consortium, University of York, York, UKBackground: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has shown similar or improved clinical outcomes compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at low risk for surgical mortality. This cost-utility analysis compared TAVI with SAPIEN 3 versus SAVR in symptomatic severe aortic stenosis patients at low risk of surgical mortality from the perspective of the Swedish healthcare system. Methods: A published, two-stage, Markov-based cost-utility model that captured clinical outcomes from the Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated according to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART) registry (2018–2020) was adapted from the perspective of the Swedish healthcare system using local general population mortality, utility and costs data. The model had a lifetime horizon. Model outputs included changes in direct healthcare costs and health-related quality of life from using TAVI as compared with SAVR. Results: TAVI with SAPIEN 3 resulted in lifetime costs per patient of 484,142 SEK Swedish krona (SEK) and lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient of 7.16, whilst SAVR resulted in lifetime costs and QALYs per patient of 457,625 SEK and 6.81 QALYs, respectively. Compared with SAVR, TAVI offered an incremental improvement of +0.35 QALY per patient at an increased cost of +26,517 SEK per patient over a lifetime horizon, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 76,532 SEK per QALY gained. Conclusion: TAVI with SAPIEN 3 is a cost-effective option versus SAVR for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at low risk for surgical mortality treated in the Swedish healthcare setting. These findings may inform policy decisions in Sweden for the management of this patient group.https://ujms.net/index.php/ujms/article/view/10741/19351transcatheter aortic valve implantationsurgical aortic valve replacementcost-effectivenessaortic stenosislow risk
spellingShingle Konrad Nilsson
Stefan James
Oskar Angerås
Jenny Backes
Henrik Bjursten
Pascal Candolfi
Mattias Götberg
Henrik Hagström
Chiara Malmberg
Niels Erik Nielsen
Archita Sarmah
Magnus Settergren
Tom Bromilow
Cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low risk of surgical mortality in Sweden
Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences
transcatheter aortic valve implantation
surgical aortic valve replacement
cost-effectiveness
aortic stenosis
low risk
title Cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low risk of surgical mortality in Sweden
title_full Cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low risk of surgical mortality in Sweden
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low risk of surgical mortality in Sweden
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low risk of surgical mortality in Sweden
title_short Cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low risk of surgical mortality in Sweden
title_sort cost effectiveness analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low risk of surgical mortality in sweden
topic transcatheter aortic valve implantation
surgical aortic valve replacement
cost-effectiveness
aortic stenosis
low risk
url https://ujms.net/index.php/ujms/article/view/10741/19351
work_keys_str_mv AT konradnilsson costeffectivenessanalysisoftranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacementinpatientswithsevereaorticstenosisatlowriskofsurgicalmortalityinsweden
AT stefanjames costeffectivenessanalysisoftranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacementinpatientswithsevereaorticstenosisatlowriskofsurgicalmortalityinsweden
AT oskarangeras costeffectivenessanalysisoftranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacementinpatientswithsevereaorticstenosisatlowriskofsurgicalmortalityinsweden
AT jennybackes costeffectivenessanalysisoftranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacementinpatientswithsevereaorticstenosisatlowriskofsurgicalmortalityinsweden
AT henrikbjursten costeffectivenessanalysisoftranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacementinpatientswithsevereaorticstenosisatlowriskofsurgicalmortalityinsweden
AT pascalcandolfi costeffectivenessanalysisoftranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacementinpatientswithsevereaorticstenosisatlowriskofsurgicalmortalityinsweden
AT mattiasgotberg costeffectivenessanalysisoftranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacementinpatientswithsevereaorticstenosisatlowriskofsurgicalmortalityinsweden
AT henrikhagstrom costeffectivenessanalysisoftranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacementinpatientswithsevereaorticstenosisatlowriskofsurgicalmortalityinsweden
AT chiaramalmberg costeffectivenessanalysisoftranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacementinpatientswithsevereaorticstenosisatlowriskofsurgicalmortalityinsweden
AT nielseriknielsen costeffectivenessanalysisoftranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacementinpatientswithsevereaorticstenosisatlowriskofsurgicalmortalityinsweden
AT architasarmah costeffectivenessanalysisoftranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacementinpatientswithsevereaorticstenosisatlowriskofsurgicalmortalityinsweden
AT magnussettergren costeffectivenessanalysisoftranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacementinpatientswithsevereaorticstenosisatlowriskofsurgicalmortalityinsweden
AT tombromilow costeffectivenessanalysisoftranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacementinpatientswithsevereaorticstenosisatlowriskofsurgicalmortalityinsweden