An exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis of a novel tissue valve compared with mechanical valves for surgical aortic valve replacement in subgroups of people aged 55–64 and 65+ with aortic stenosis in the UK

References

• Bonow RO, Greenland P. Population-wide trends in aortic stenosis incidence and outcomes. Circulation. 2015;131(11):969–971. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.014846
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carabello BA, Paulus WJ. Aortic stenosis. Lancet. 2009;373(9667):956–966. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60211-7
   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
• Andell P, Li X, Martinsson A, et al. Epidemiology of valvular heart disease in a Swedish nationwide hospital-based register study. Heart. 2017 Nov;103(21):1696–1703. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2016-310894
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eveborn GW, Schirmer H, Heggelund G, et al. The evolving epidemiology of valvular aortic stenosis. The Tromsø study. Heart. 2013;99(6):396–400. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302265
   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
• d’Arcy JL, Coffey S, Loudon MA, et al. Large-scale community echocardiographic screening reveals a major burden of undiagnosed valvular heart disease in older people: the OxVALVE population cohort study. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(47):3515–3522. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw229
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strange GA, Stewart S, Curzen N, et al. Uncovering the treatable burden of severe aortic stenosis in the UK. Open Heart. 2022;9(1):e001783. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2021-001783
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Heart valve disease presenting in adults: investigation and management 2021. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng208
   Google Scholar
• Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, et al. ACC/AHA Guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American heart Association Joint Committee on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation. 2020 [2021 Feb 2];143(5):e35–e71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease: developed by the task force for the management of valvular heart disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic surgery (EACTS). Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2022 Jun;75(6):524. doi: 10.1016/j.rec.2022.05.006
   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
• 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 Sep 1;29(3):386–392. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivz122
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Biancari F, Valtola A, Juvonen T, et al. Trifecta versus perimount magna ease aortic valve prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020;110(3):879–888. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.12.071
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam KY, Koene B, Timmermans N, et al. Reintervention after aortic valve replacement: comparison of 3 aortic bioprostheses. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020;110(2):615–621. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.10.060
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theologou T, Harky A, Shaw M, et al. Mitroflow and Perimount Magna 10 years outcomes a direct propensity match analysis to assess reintervention rates and long follow‐up mortality. J Card Surg. 2019;34(11):1279–1287. doi: 10.1111/jocs.14250
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoen FJ, Levy RJ. Calcification of tissue heart valve substitutes: progress toward understanding and prevention. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79(3):1072–1080. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.06.033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shala M, Niclauss L. Early results of the Resilia Inspiris aortic valve in the old age patients-a retrospective comparison with the Carpentier Edwards Magna ease. J Cardiovasc Thorac Res. 2020;12(3):229–233. doi: 10.34172/jcvtr.2020.38
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston DR, Griffith BP, Puskas JD, et al. Intermediate-term outcomes of aortic valve replacement using a bioprosthesis with a novel tissue. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021;162(5):1478–1485. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.01.095
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadowski J, Bartuś K, Kapelak B, et al. Aortic valve replacement with a novel anti-calcification technology platform. Kardiol Pol. 2015;73(5):317–322. doi: 10.5603/KP.a2014.0214
   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 Jan 29;59(2):434–441. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezaa311
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pibarot P, Borger MA, Clavel M-A, et al. Study design of the prospective non-randomized single-arm multicenter evaluation of the durability of aortic bioprosthetic valves with RESILIA tissue in subjects under 65 years old (RESILIENCE trial). Structural Heart. 2020;4(1):46–52. doi: 10.1080/24748706.2019.1686554
   Google Scholar
• Azari S, Rezapour A, Omidi N, et al. A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of heart valve replacement with a mechanical versus biological prosthesis in patients with heart valvular disease. Heart Fail Rev. 2020;25(3):495–503. doi: 10.1007/s10741-019-09897-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaghoubi M, Aghayan HR, Arjmand B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of homograft heart valve replacement surgery: an introductory study. Cell Tissue Bank. 2011;12(2):153–158. doi: 10.1007/s10561-009-9165-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Developing NICE guidelines: the manual 2022. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20/chapter/introduction
   Google Scholar
• Bavaria JG, Griffith B, Heimansohn DA, et al. Five-year outcomes of the COMMENCE trial Investigating aortic valve replacement with a novel tissue bioprosthesis. Annals Thoracic Surgery. 2023 Jun 1;115(6):1429–1436.
   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. 2015;49(5):1462–1468. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezv384
   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
• Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford university press; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Guyot P, Ades A, Ouwens MJ, et al. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):1–13. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-9
   PubMedGoogle 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. 2021 Jan 20;164:1444–1455.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.11.181
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Office of National Statisics. National life tables UK (2017-19) 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ, et al. 2015 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
• Mealing S, Feldman T, Eaton J, et al. EVEREST II high risk study based UK cost-effectiveness analysis of MitraClip® in patients with severe mitral regurgitation ineligible for conventional repair/replacement surgery. J Med Econ. 2013 Nov;16(11):1317–1326. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2013.834823
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shore J, Russell J, Frankenstein L, et al. An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter mitral valve repair for people with secondary mitral valve regurgitation in the UK. J Med Econ. 2020 Dec;23(12):1425–1434. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2020.1854769
   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;4:187–196. doi: 10.26502/jsr.10020125
   Google Scholar
• NHS. 2018/19 National cost collection data. 2018 Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/national-cost-collection/
   Google Scholar
• Curtis L, Burns A. Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU). Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2020. Canterbury: University of Kent; 2020. p. 1–188.
   Google Scholar
• Luengo-Fernandez R, Li L, Rothwell PM, et al. Costs of bleeding on long-term antiplatelet treatment without routine co-prescription of proton-pump inhibitors. Int J Stroke. 2021;16(6):719–726. doi: 10.1177/1747493019879658
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Xu X-M, Vestesson E, Paley L, et al. The economic burden of stroke care in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: using a national stroke register to estimate and report patient-level health economic outcomes in stroke. Eur Stroke J. 2018;3(1):82–91. doi: 10.1177/2396987317746516
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox M, Mealing S, Anderson R, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronisation (biventricular pacing) for heart failure: systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(47):iii–iv. (Winchester, England) ix. doi: 10.3310/hta11470
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biermann J, Neumann T, Angermann CE, et al. Resource use and costs in systolic heart failure according to disease severity: a pooled analysis from the German Competence Network heart failure. J Public Health. 2012;20(1):23–30. doi: 10.1007/s10389-011-0452-0
   Google Scholar
• National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. BNF British National Formulary, 2021. Available from: https://bnf.nice.org.uk/
   Google Scholar
• National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. NICE guidance:TA314. Assessment Report, Table 112. 2013. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta314/documents/arrythmias-icds-heart-failure-cardiac-resynchronisation-assessment-report2
   Google Scholar
• Szende A, Janssen B, Cabases J Self-reported population health: an international perspective based on EQ-5D. 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Szende A, Janssen B, Cabases J, et al. Self-reported population health: an international perspective based on EQ-5D. Springer Nature: 2014. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7596-1
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths A, Paracha N, Davies A, et al. The cost effectiveness of ivabradine in the treatment of chronic heart failure from the UK National health Service perspective. Heart. 2014;100(13):1031–1036. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2013-304598
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rivero-Arias O, Ouellet M, Gray A, et al. Mapping the modified Rankin scale (mRS) measurement into the generic EuroQol (EQ-5D) health outcome. Med Decis Mak. 2010;30(3):341–354. doi: 10.1177/0272989X09349961
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaier K, Gutmann A, Baumbach H, et al. Quality of life among elderly patients undergoing transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement–a model-based longitudinal data analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12955-016-0512-9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sullivan PW, Slejko JF, Sculpher MJ, et al. Catalogue of EQ-5D scores for the United Kingdom. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(6):800–804. doi: 10.1177/0272989X11401031
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saxon JT, Allen KB, Cohen DJ, et al. Bioprosthetic valve Fracture During valve-in-valve TAVR: Bench to Bedside. Interv Cardiol. 2018 Jan;13(1):20–26. doi: 10.15420/icr.2017:29:1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Neumann F-J, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(2):87–165. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manji RA, Ekser B, Menkis AH, et al. Bioprosthetic heart valves of the future. Xenotransplantation. 2014;21(1):1–10. doi: 10.1111/xen.12080
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manji RA, Lee W, Cooper DK. Xenograft bioprosthetic heart valves: Past, present and future. Int J Surg. 2015;23:280–284. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.07.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meuris B, Borger MA, Bourguignon T, et al. Durability of bioprosthetic aortic valves in patients under the age of 60 years–rationale and design of the international INDURE registry. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020;15(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s13019-020-01155-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elamin MB, Montori VM. The hierarchy of evidence: from unsystematic clinical observations to systematic reviews. Neurology: Springer New York; 2012. p. 11–24. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-88555-1_2
   Google Scholar
• Committee V-W, Généreux P, Piazza N, et al. Valve Academic research Consortium 3: updated endpoint definitions for aortic valve clinical research. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(19):1825–1857. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa799
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El Oakley R, Kleine P, Bach DS. Choice of prosthetic heart valve in today’s practice. Circulation. 2008;117(2):253–256. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.736819
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar