ArticleEuropean heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes2025
Cost-effectiveness of population screening for aortic stenosis.
Article in European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detection of Severe Structural Heart Disease Using an AI-Enhanced Portable 1-Lead ECG: The ACCESS-SHD Study.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Validation and longitudinal trajectory analysis of an AI-based ECG model for aortic stenosis: from community screening to pre-TAVR risk stratification.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- AI-ECG for Echocardiography Triage in Structural Heart Disease: Evidence, Implementation, and Future Directions.International journal of general medicine · 2026Review
- Prediction of Aortic Stenosis Progression Using Artificial Intelligence: A Machine Learning Model.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- Article
- Deep learning for electrocardiogram interpretation: Bench to bedside.European journal of clinical investigation · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsAortic stenosis (AS) is a progressive disease predominantly affecting elderly patients that carries significant morbidity and mortality without aortic valve replacement, the only proven treatment. Our objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of AS screening using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in a geriatric population from the perspective of the publicly funded healthcare system in Canada. METHODS AND
resultsMarkov models estimating the cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for AS screening with a one-time TTE were developed. The model included diagnosed and undiagnosed AS health states, hospitalizations, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), and post-TAVR health states. Primary analysis included screening at 70 and 80 years of age with intervention at symptom onset, with scenario analysis included for early intervention at the time of severe asymptomatic AS diagnosis. Monte Carlo simulation of 5000 replications was completed with a lifetime horizon and a 1.5% discount for costs and outcomes.Screening for AS at the age of 70 years was associated with an ICER of $156 722, and screening at 80 years of age was associated with an ICER of $28 005, suggesting that screening at 80 years of age is cost-effective when willingness-to-pay per QALY is $50 000. Scenario analysis with early intervention was not cost-effective, with an ICER of $142 157 at 70 years and $124 651 at 80 years.
conclusionScreening for AS at 80 years of age with a one-time TTE, in a Canadian population, improves quality of life and is cost-effective in a publicly funded healthcare system providing, TAVR is reserved for symptomatic patients.
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.