ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2024
Cost-utility analysis of TAVI compared with surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low risk of surgical mortality in the Netherlands.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness of TAVI vs Minimally Invasive SAVR for Low-Risk Aortic Stenosis in Japan.JACC. Asia · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis across nine European countries.European heart journal open · 2026Article
- Cost-Utility Analysis of TAVI Versus Surgery in Low-Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis in the UK.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Efficacy and Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low- to Intermediate-Risk Aortic Regurgitation Patients: A Comprehensive Clinical Comparison.Cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Economic impact of TAVI pathway optimisation: the experience of the University Hospital of Parma.BMC health services research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is growing evidence to support the benefits of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (sSAS) who are at high- or intermediate-risk of surgical mortality. The PARTNER 3 trial showed clinical benefits with SAPIEN 3 TAVI compared with SAVR in patients at low risk of surgical mortality. Whether TAVI is also cost-effective compared with SAVR for low-risk patients in the Dutch healthcare system remains uncertain. This article presents an analysis using PARTNER 3 outcomes and costs data from the Netherlands to inform a cost-utility model and examine cost implications of TAVI over SAVR in a Dutch low-risk population.
methodsA two-stage cost-utility analysis was performed using a published and validated health economic model based on adverse events with both TAVI and SAVR interventions from a published randomized low risk trial dataset, and a Markov model that captured lifetime healthcare costs and patient outcomes post-intervention. The model was adapted using Netherlands-specific cost data to assess the cost-effectiveness of TAVI and SAVR. Uncertainty was addressed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
resultsTAVI generated 0.89 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a €4742 increase in costs per patient compared with SAVR over a lifetime time horizon, representing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €5346 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses confirm robust results, with TAVI remaining cost-effective across several sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsBased on the model results, compared with SAVR, TAVI with SAPIEN 3 appears cost-effective for the treatment of Dutch patients with sSAS who are at low risk of surgical mortality. Qualitative data suggest broader societal benefits are likely and these findings could be used to optimize appropriate intervention selection for this patient population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.