Budget impact analysis of a bovine pericardial aortic bioprosthesis versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in adult patients with aortic stenosis in Romania

References

• Radulescu C-I, Deleanu D, Chioncel O. Survival, functional capacity and quality of life after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: present considerations and future perspectives. Rom J Cardiol. 2021;31(2):319–325. doi: 10.47803/rjc.2021.31.2.319.
   Google Scholar
• Thoenes M, Bramlage P, Zamorano P, et al. Patient screening for early detection of aortic stenosis (as)-review of current practice and future perspectives. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10(9):5584–5594. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.09.02.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eugène M, Duchnowski P, Prendergast B, et al. Contemporary management of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;78(22):2131–2143. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.09.864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nkomo VT, Gardin JM, Skelton TN, et al. Burden of valvular heart diseases: a population-based study. Lancet. 2006;368(9540):1005–1011. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69208-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durko AP, Osnabrugge RL, Van Mieghem NM, et al. Annual number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve implantation per country: current estimates and future projections. Eur Heart J. 2018;39(28):2635–2642. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eveborn GW, Schirmer H, Heggelund G, et al. The evolving epidemiology of valvular aortic stenosis. the tromso study. Heart. 2013;99(6):396–400. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iung B, Baron G, Butchart EG, et al. A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: the Euro heart survey on valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2003;24(13):1231–1243. doi: 10.1016/s0195-668x(03)00201-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osnabrugge RLJ, Mylotte D, Head SJ, et al. Aortic stenosis in the elderly: disease prevalence and number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis and modeling study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(11):1002–1012. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartley A, Hammond-Haley M, Marshall DC, et al. Trends in mortality from aortic stenosis in Europe: 2000–2017. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:748137. [Internet]. Available from: doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.748137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iung B, Delgado V, Rosenhek R, et al. Contemporary presentation and management of valvular heart disease: the EURObservational research programme valvular heart disease II survey. Circulation. 2019;140(14):1156–1169. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.041080.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. Romania: country health profile 2021. [Internet]. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2021 cited 2023 Jan 23]. Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/romania-country-health-profile-2021_74ad9999-en.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Can people afford to pay for health care? New evidence on financial protection in Romania [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Jan 23]. Available from: https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/9789289057905.
   Google Scholar
• Casa Naţională de Asigurări de Sănătate. Programul national de boli cardiovasculare. [Internet]. Casa Naţională de Asigurări de Sănătate. 2023 [cited 2023 Jan 18]. Available from: http://www.casan.ro/page/programul-national-de-boli-cardiovasculare.html.
   Google Scholar
• Degenhard J. Health expenditure GDP share in Romania 2028 [Internet]. Statista. 2023 cited 2023 Jan 15]. Available from: https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1141639/health-expenditure-gdp-share-forecast-in-romania.
   Google Scholar
• ESC guides – the abbreviated version. [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Jan 23]. Available from: https://www.cardioportal.ro/ghiduri-src/ghidurile-esc-varianta-prescurtata/.
   Google Scholar
• Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association joint committee on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation. 2021;143(5):e72–e227. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000923.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser N, Jackson V, Holzmann MJ, et al. Aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs. biological prostheses in patients aged 50–69 years. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(34):2658–2667. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv580.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourguignon T, Bouquiaux-Stablo A-L, Candolfi P, et al. Very long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards perimount valve in aortic position. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99(3):831–837. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.09.030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourguignon T, Lhommet P, El Khoury R, et al. Very long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards perimount aortic valve in patients aged 50–65 years. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;49(5):1462–1468. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezv384.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan JM, Edwards FH, Zhao Y, et al. Long-term safety and effectiveness of mechanical versus biologic aortic valve prostheses in older patients: results from the society of thoracic surgeons adult cardiac surgery national database. Circulation. 2013;127(16):1647–1655. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.002003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puskas JD, Bavaria JE, Svensson LG, et al. The COMMENCE trial: 2-year outcomes with an aortic bioprosthesis with RESILIA tissue. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;52(3):432–439. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezx158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez-Marco A, Grant SW, Mohamed S, et al. Impact of mechanical aortic prostheses in hospital stay and anticoagulation related complications. J Surg Res. 2021;04(02):187–196. doi: 10.26502/jsr.10020125.
   Google Scholar
• Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2022;43(7):561–632. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabriela SS, M C, C V. To what extent is Romania prepared to join health technology assessment cooperation at European level. The Medical-Surgical Journal. 2021;125:146–153.
   Google Scholar
• Carapinha JL, Al-Omar HA, Aluthman U, et al. Budget impact analysis of a bioprosthetic valve with a novel tissue versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients older than 65 years with aortic stenosis in Saudi Arabia. J Med Econ. 2022;25(1):1149–1157. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2022.2133320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices–budget impact analysis. Value Health. 2007;10(5):336–347. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00187.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The World Bank. Population, total - Romania. | Data [Internet]. [cited 2023 Jan 30]. Available from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=RO.
   Google Scholar
• US Census Bureau. Census Bureau Releases New Population Projections for 30 Countries and Areas. [Internet]. Census.gov. [cited 2023 Jan 30]. Available from: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/population-projections-international-data-base.html.
   Google Scholar
• Attia T, Yang Y, Svensson LG, et al. Similar long-term survival after isolated bioprosthetic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement: a propensity-matched analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022;164(5):1444–1455.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.11.181.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• World Health Organization. Global Health Observatory, Life tables [Internet]. WHO. World Health Organization; [cited 2021 Sep 21]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.61440?lang=en.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao DF, Seco M, Wu JJ, et al. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in middle-aged adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102(1):315–327. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.10.092.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ, et al. ESC guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis: the task force for the management of infective endocarditis of the european society of cardiology (ESC). endorsed by: European association for cardio-thoracic surgery (EACTS), the European association of nuclear medicine (EANM). Eur Heart J. 2015;36(44):3075–3128. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F, et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). Eur Heart J. 2012;33:2451–2496.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leiria TLL, Lopes RD, Williams JB, et al. Antithrombotic therapies in patients with prosthetic heart valves: guidelines translated for the clinician. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2011;31(4):514–522. doi: 10.1007/s11239-011-0574-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanaani A, Yandrapalli S, Harburger JM. Antithrombotic management of patients with prosthetic heart valves. Cardiol Rev. 2018;26(4):177–186. doi: 10.1097/CRD.0000000000000189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kytö V, Ahtela E, Sipilä J, et al. Mechanical versus biological valve prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with infective endocarditis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2019;29(3):386–392. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivz122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Head SJ, Çelik M, Kappetein AP. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(28):2183–2191. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diaz R, Hernandez-Vaquero D, Alvarez-Cabo R, et al. Long-term outcomes of mechanical versus biological aortic valve prosthesis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019;158(3):706–714.e18. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.10.146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bavaria JE, Griffith B, Heimansohn DA, et al. Five-year outcomes of the COMMENCE trial investigating aortic valve replacement with RESILIA tissue. Ann Thorac Surg. 2023;115(6):1429–1436. S0003-4975(22)00063-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Etnel JRG, Huygens SA, Grashuis P, et al. Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in nonelderly adults: a systematic review, meta-analysis, microsimulation. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019;12(2):e005481. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.005481.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tackling G, Lala V. Endocarditis Antibiotic Regimens. StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing;2022cited 2022 Jun 24]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542162/.
   Google Scholar
• Baddour LM, Wilson WR, Bayer AS, et al. Infective endocarditis in adults: diagnosis, antimicrobial therapy, and management of complications. Circulation. 2015;132(15):1435–1486. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartus K, Litwinowicz R, Bilewska A, et al. Final 5-year outcomes following aortic valve replacement with a RESILIATM tissue bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021;59(2):434–441. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezaa311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tukey JW. Exploratory data analysis. [Internet]. Reading, Mass.  Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.; 1977 cited 2022 Sep 12]. Available from: http://archive.org/details/exploratorydataa00tuke_0.
   Google Scholar
• InterQuartile Range (IQR). [Internet]. [cited 2022 Sep 12]. Available from: https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/BS/BS704_SummarizingData/BS704_SummarizingData7.html.
   Google Scholar
• Wilbring M, Tugtekin S-M, Alexiou K, et al. Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs conventional aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with previous cardiac surgery: a propensity-score analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;44(1):42–47. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezs680.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Comparison Program (ICP). [Internet]. World Bank. [cited 2022 Jul 14]. Available from: https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/icp.
   Google Scholar
• Keeling D, Baglin T, Tait C, et al. Guidelines on oral anticoagulation with warfarin – fourth edition. Br J Haematol. 2011;154(3):311–324. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2011.08753.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Health Romania. Maximum Prices of Human Use Drugs. Ordin Nr. 44. din 23 februarie 2022 [Internet]. Ministry of Health; 2022. Available from: https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/251961.
   Google Scholar
• Liviu Preda A, Galieta Mincă D. Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment for metastatic renal carcinoma in Romania. J Med Life. 2018;11(4):306–311. doi: 10.25122/jml-2018-0069.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sava FA, Yates BT, Lupu V, et al. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of cognitive therapy, rational emotive behavioral therapy, and fluoxetine (prozac) in treating depression: a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Psychol. 2009;65(1):36–52. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20550.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baghai M, Wendler O, Grant SW, et al. Aortic valve surgery in the UK, trends in activity and outcomes from a 15-year complete national series. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021;60(6):1353–1357. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezab199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andell P, Li X, Martinsson A, et al. Epidemiology of valvular heart disease in a swedish nationwide hospital-based register study. Heart. 2017;103(21):1696–1703. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2016-310894.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards Lifesciences. Data on hand: unpublished raw data. Nyon, Switzerland: Edwards Lifesciences; 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Woods B, Sideris E, Palmer S, et al. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 19. Partitioned Survival Analysis for Decision Modelling in Health Care: A Critical Review. [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 May 11]. Available from: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/nice-dsu/tsds/partitioned-survival-analysis.
   Google Scholar
• Wang XJ, Wang Y-H, Ong MJC, et al. Cost-Effectiveness and budget impact analyses of tisagenlecleucel in pediatric and young adult patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia from the Singapore healthcare system perspective. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2022;14:333–355. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S355557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang XJ, Wang Y-H, Li SCT, et al. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses of tisagenlecleucel in adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma from singapore’s private insurance payer’s perspective. J Med Econ. 2021;24(1):637–653. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2021.1922066.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skalt D, Moertl B, von Bergwelt-Baildon M, et al. Budget impact analysis of CAR T-cell therapy for adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in Germany. Hemasphere. 2022;6(7):e736. doi: 10.1097/HS9.0000000000000736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basic E, Kappel M, Misra A, et al. Budget impact analysis of the use of oral and intravenous therapy regimens for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in Germany. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(9):1351–1361. doi: 10.1007/s10198-020-01219-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CRUEASS. DRG Romania - Center for Research and Evaluation of Health Services. [Internet]. What is the DRG system. 2023 [cited 2023 Jan 17]. Available from: https://www.drg.ro/index.php?p=drg&s=romania.
   Google Scholar
• IHACPA. AR-DRGs [Internet]. 2023 cited 2023 Jan 17]. Available from: https://www.ihacpa.gov.au/health-care/classification/admitted-acute-care/ar-drgs.
   Google Scholar
• Potter S, Davies C, Davies G, et al. The use of micro-costing in economic analyses of surgical interventions: a systematic review. Health Econ Rev. 2020;10(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s13561-020-0260-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bobade RA, Helmers RA, Jaeger TM, et al. Time-driven activity-based cost analysis for outpatient anticoagulation therapy: direct costs in a primary care setting with optimal performance. J Med Econ. 2019;22(5):471–477. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2019.1582058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar