Savings associated with surgical aortic valve replacement with a RESILIA tissue valve based on seven-year COMMENCE trial results

References

• Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2017;70(2):252–289.
   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
• Fujita B, Ensminger S, Bauer T, et al. Trends in practice and outcomes from 2011 to 2015 for surgical aortic valve replacement: an update from the German Aortic Valve Registry on 42 776 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018;53(3):552–559. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezx408.
   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
• Kiyose AT, Suzumura EA, Laranjeira L, et al. Comparison of biological and mechanical prostheses for heart valve surgery: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2019;112(3):292–301. doi: 10.5935/abc.20180272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masuda M, Okumura M, Doki Y, et al. Thoracic and cardiovascular surgery in Japan during 2014: annual report by The Japanese Association for Thoracic Surgery. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;64(11):665–697. doi: 10.1007/s11748-016-0695-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badhwar V, Ofenloch JC, Rovin JD, et al. Noninferiority of closely monitored mechanical valves to bioprostheses overshadowed by early mortality benefit in younger patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93(3):748–753. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.12.032.
   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
• Chiang YP, Chikwe J, Moskowitz AJ, et al. Survival and long-term outcomes following bioprosthetic vs mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 69 years. JAMA. 2014;312(13):1323–1329. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.12679.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Etnel JR, Huygens SA, Grashuis P, et al. Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in nonelderly adults: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and microsimulation. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019;12(2):e005481. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.005481.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstone AB, Chiu P, Baiocchi M, et al. Mechanical or biologic prostheses for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(19):1847–1857. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1613792.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirji SA, Kolkailah AA, Ramirez-Del Val F, et al. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 years and younger. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;106(4):1113–1120. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.05.073.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isaacs AJ, Shuhaiber J, Salemi A, et al. National trends in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149(5):1262–1269.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.01.052.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilic A, Bianco V, Gleason TG, et al. Hospital readmission rates are similar between patients with mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valves. J Card Surg. 2018;33(9):497–505. doi: 10.1111/jocs.13781.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Son J, Cho YH, Jeong DS, et al. Mechanical versus tissue aortic prosthesis in sexagenarians: comparison of hemodynamic and clinical outcomes. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;51(2):100–108. doi: 10.5090/kjtcs.2018.51.2.100.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• 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, El Khoury R, Candolfi P, et al. Very long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount aortic valve in patients aged 60 or younger. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100(3):853–859. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.03.105.
   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. 2015;49(5):1462–1468. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezv384.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kittayarak C, Reifenberger M, Chan S, et al. Reimbursement savings associated with tissue versus mechanical surgical aortic valve replacement in Thailand. Value Health Reg Issues. 2022;32:23–30. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2022.06.003.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nguyen TC, Walker T, Gunnarsson C, et al. Long-term healthcare expenditures over time for tissue and mechanical aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2021;112(2):526–531. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.07.106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartus K, Litwinowicz R, Bilewska A, et al. Final 5-year outcomes following aortic valve replacement with a RESILIA™ tissue bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021;59(2):434–441. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezaa311.
   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. 2022;115(6):1429–1436. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.12.058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaver T, Bavaria JE, Griffith B, et al. Seven-year outcomes following aortic valve replacement with a novel tissue bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023; In Press. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2023.09.047.
   Google Scholar
• Keuffel EL, Reifenberger M, Marfo G, et al. Long run savings associated with surgical aortic valve replacement using a RESILIA tissue bioprosthetic valve versus a mechanical valve. J Med Econ. 2023;26(1):120–127. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2022.2159662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond M, Barbieri M, Cook J, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12(4):409–418. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00489.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS)—explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16(2):231–250. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann PJ, Sanders GD, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2022;38(1):e13. doi: 10.1017/S0266462321001732.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bavaria JE, Tommaso CL, Brindis RG, et al. 2018 AATS/ACC/SCAI/STS expert consensus systems of care document: operator and institutional recommendations and requirements for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a joint report of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(3):340–374. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.07.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akins CW, Miller DC, Turina MI, et al. Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2008;33(4):523–528. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2007.12.055.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunn A, Grosse SD, Zuvekas SH. Adjusting health expenditures for inflation: a review of measures for health services research in the United States. Health Serv Res. 2018;53(1):175–196. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12612.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grosse SD, Nelson RE, Nyarko KA, et al. The economic burden of incident venous thromboembolism in the United States: a review of estimated attributable healthcare costs. Thromb Res. 2016;137:3–10. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2015.11.033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morita Y, Haruna T, Haruna Y, et al. Thirty‐day readmission after infective endocarditis: analysis from a nationwide readmission database. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8(9):e011598. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.011598.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon AW, Kugelmass A, Brown P, et al. 90-day cost and clinical outcomes comparing TAVR to SAVR: do the economics work? Paper presented at: Session aortic valve disease: optimizing TAVR. American College of Cardiology; 2018; Orlando, FL.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper Z, Craig SV, Gaynor M, et al. The price ain’t right? Hospital prices and health spending on the privately insured. Q J Econ. 2019;134(1):51–107. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjy020.
   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