Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41858550›Full record

ArticleStructural heart : the journal of the Heart Team2026

Cost-Effectiveness of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement Versus Redo Surgical Mitral Valve Replacement for Degenerated Bioprosthetic Mitral Valve.

Elina E Pliakos, Kriyana Reddy, Pavan Atluri, Howard C Herrmann, Paul Fiorilli, Mohamad Alkhouli, Suzanne J Baron, Jay Giri, Ashwin S Nathan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Elina E PliakosDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Kriyana ReddyPenn Cardiovascular Outcomes, Quality, and Evaluative Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Pavan AtluriDivision of Cardiovascular Surgery, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Howard C HerrmannDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Paul FiorilliDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Mohamad AlkhouliDivision of Cardiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Suzanne J BaronDivision of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jay GiriDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Ashwin S NathanDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves (MVs) are associated with significant morbidity and health care expenditures. For certain patients, valve-in-valve transcatheter MV replacement (ViV TMVR) has emerged as a promising treatment option due to fewer complications and shorter hospital length of stay when compared with redo surgical MV replacement (redo-SMVR). We constructed a decision-analytic model comparing the cost-effectiveness of ViV TMVR to redo-SMVR for the management of degenerated bioprosthetic valves. Methods: Cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating deaths averted and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Uncertainty was addressed by plotting cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves for various willingness-to-pay thresholds. The main outcome was ICERs defined as United States (US) dollars/deaths averted. Results: In the base case analysis, the cost associated with ViV TMVR was estimated at $87,724 with a 0.93 probability of survival at 1 month. For the redo-SMVR strategy, the cost was $104,444, and the probability of survival at 1 month was 0.89. Overall, ViV TMVR resulted in savings of $418,001 per death averted (ICER, -$418,001/death averted). In cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, ViV TMVR was cost-effective in 83% to 88% of simulations for a willingness-to-pay threshold ranging from $0 to $100,000. Conclusions: ViV TMVR is an effective strategy that may result in significant health care savings for the management of degenerated bioprosthetic valves.

Indexed as

Bioprosthetic valve degenerationCost-effectiveness analysisDecision-analytic modelMitral valve-in-valveRedo surgical mitral valve replacementTranscatheter mitral valve replacement

Identifiers

PMID41858550
PMCPMC12997312

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.