Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39691778›Full record

ArticleUpsala journal of medical sciences2024

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.

Konrad Nilsson, Stefan James, Oskar Angerås, Jenny Backes, Henrik Bjursten, Pascal Candolfi, Mattias Götberg, Henrik Hagström, Chiara Malmberg, Niels Erik Nielsen and 3 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Upsala journal of medical sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Konrad NilssonDepartment of Medical Sciences, Cardiology and Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Stefan JamesDepartment of Medical Sciences, Cardiology and Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Oskar AngeråsDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Jenny BackesDepartment of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden.
Henrik BjurstenDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Pascal CandolfiEdwards Lifesciences SA, Nyon, Switzerland.
Mattias GötbergDepartment of Cardiology, Skåne University Hospital, Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Henrik HagströmDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Chiara MalmbergIHE - The Swedish Institute for Health Economics, Stockholm, Sweden.
Niels Erik NielsenDepartment of Cardiology, Heart Centre, University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden.
Archita SarmahEdwards Lifesciences SA, Nyon, Switzerland.
Magnus SettergrenHeart and Vascular Unit, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Tom BromilowYork Health Economics Consortium, University of York, York, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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 Results: TAVI with SAPIEN 3 resulted in lifetime costs per patient of 940,541 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 821,380 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 +119,161 SEK per patient over a lifetime horizon, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 343,918 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.

Indexed as

Aortic Valve StenosisCost-Benefit AnalysisQuality-Adjusted Life YearsTranscatheter Aortic Valve ReplacementAgedAged, 80 and overAortic ValveCost-Effectiveness AnalysisFemaleHealth Care CostsHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationHumansMaleMarkov ChainsQuality of LifeSwedenaortic stenosiscost-effectivenesslow risksurgical aortic valve replacementTranscatheter aortic valve implantation

Identifiers

PMID39691778
PMCPMC11650470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.