Why is this study important?
This data shows that the upfront costs of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are significantly higher than surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) but in the first 3–6 months the cost savings from TAVR makes up for initial higher costs.
Should I change my practice because of these findings?
No. You’re likely already recommending TAVR in appropriate patients. This presentation assesses the financial consequences of your recommendation.
What question was this study supposed to answer?
The PARTNER 3 study looked at low surgical risk patients treated with TAVR or SAVR. This presentation focused on economic outcomes data at the 2- year mark.
What did the study show?
Patients with TAVR had shorter hospital lengths of stay, lower readmission expenses, and lower costs associated with rehabilitation. At two years, there was a small saving with TAVR. Most importantly, patients had higher quality of life with TAVR, which is a strong indicator of economic benefit.
How good was the approach/methodology?
The PARTNER trials are extremely well designed and administered. Still, economic claims data can be difficult to analyze, and often does not capture all the costs associated with each therapy. In addition, 2 years is a short time in the lifespan of an artificial heart valve, so long-term follow-up will be needed to assess continued quality of life and economic benefit. The two therapies are very similar at 2 years, making the less invasive option attractive, but in low-risk patients who are often expected to live beyond the life of their initial valve procedure, long-term clinical outcomes will ultimately drive the direction of the therapy.
All Editors: Brian Kolski, MD; Kirk M. Garratt, MD, MSc, MSCAI; and David A. Cox, MD, MSCAI
All Structural Clinical Practice
Including recently published studies, coverage of late-breaking science, updates from clinical trials and registries, and complex case presentations.