Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Estimating the additional costs per life saved due to transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a secondary data analysis of electronic health records in Germany

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular heart disease, with a dismal prognosis when untreated. Recommended therapy is surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter (TAVR) aortic valve replacement. Based on a retrospective cohort of isolated SAVR and TAVR procedures performed in Germany in 2015 (N = 17,826), we examine the impact of treatment selection on in-hospital mortality and total in-hospital costs for a variety of at-risk populations. Since patients were not randomized to the two treatment options, the two endpoints in-hospital mortality and reimbursement are analyzed using logistic and linear regression models with 20 predefined patient characteristics as potential confounders. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated as a ratio of the risk-adjusted reimbursement and mortality differences with 95% confidence intervals obtained by Fieller’s theorem. Our study shows that TF-TAVR is more costly that SAVR and that cost differences between the procedures vary little between patient groups. Results regarding in-hospital mortality are mixed. SAVR is the predominant procedure among younger patients. For patients older than 85 years or at intermediate and higher pre-operative risk TF-TAVR seems to be the treatment of choice. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) are most favorable for patients older than 85 years (ICER €154,839, 95% CI €89,163–€302,862), followed by patients at higher pre-operative risk (ICER €413,745, 95% CI €258,027–€952,273). A hypothetical shift from SAVR towards TF-TAVR among patients at intermediate pre-operative risk is associated with a less favorable ICER (€1,486,118, 95% CI €764,732–€23,692,323), as the risk-adjusted mortality benefit is relatively small (− 0.97% point), while the additional reimbursement is still eminent (+€14,464). From a German healthcare system payer’s perspective, the additional costs per life saved due to TAVR are most favorable for patients older than 85 and/or at higher pre-operative risk.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andell, P., Li, X., Martinsson, A., et al.: Epidemiology of valvular heart disease in a Swedish nationwide hospital-based register study. Heart. 103, 1696 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2016-310894

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Varadarajan, P., Kapoor, N., Bansal, R.C., et al.: Clinical profile and natural history of 453 nonsurgically managed patients with severe aortic stenosis. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 82, 2111–2115 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.07.048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nishimura, R.A., Otto, C.M., Bonow, R.O., et al.: 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 129, 2440–2492 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Foroutan, F., Guyatt, G.H., O’Brien, K., et al.: Prognosis after surgical replacement with a bioprosthetic aortic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: systematic review of observational studies. BMJ 2016;:i5065. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5065

  5. Thyregod, H.G.H., Steinbrüchel, D.A., Ihlemann, N., et al.: Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 65, 2184–2194 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.03.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mack, M.J., Leon, M.B., Smith, C.R., et al.: 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 385, 2477–2484 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60308-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Daubert, M.A., Weissman, N.J., Hahn, R.T., et al.: Long-term valve performance of TAVR and SAVR. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging. 10, 15–25 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.11.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Siemieniuk, R.A., Agoritsas, T., Manja, V., et al.: Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2016;:i5130. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5130

  9. Reynolds, M.R., Lei, Y., Wang, K., et al.: Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis versus surgical aortic valve replacement. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 67, 29–38 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.046

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Gargiulo, G., Sannino, A., Capodanno, D., et al.: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Intern. Med. 165, 334 (2016). https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-0060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Piazza, N., Kalesan, B., van Mieghem, N., et al.: A 3-center comparison of 1-year mortality outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement on the basis of propensity score matching among intermediate-risk surgical patients. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 6, 443–451 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2013.01.136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. D’Errigo, P., Barbanti, M., Ranucci, M., et al.: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis: results from an intermediate risk propensity-matched population of the Italian OBSERVANT study. Int. J. Cardiol. 167, 1945–1952 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.05.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Leon, M.B., Smith, C.R., Mack, M.J., et al.: Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 374, 1609–1620 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1514616

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rosato, S., Santini, F., Barbanti, M., et al.: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 9, e003326 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.003326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sinzobahamvya, N., Kopp, T., Arenz, C., et al.: Reimbursement by current German diagnosis-related groups system penalises complex congenital heart surgery. Cardiol Young. 24, 344–350 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047951113000437

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Qvick, B., Buehren, V., Woltmann, A.: Ist ein Polytrauma heutzutage noch bezahlbar? G-DRG-System vs. Tagessätze anhand 1030 polytraumatisierter Patienten. Unfallchirurg. 115, 892–896 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-010-1920-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bauer, M., Ostermann, H.: DRGs in transfusion medicine and hemotherapy in Germany. Transfus Med Hemotherapy. 39, 60–66 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1159/000337337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schreyögg, J., Tiemann, O., Busse, R.: Cost accounting to determine prices: how well do prices reflect costs in the German DRG-system? Health Care Manag. Sci. 9, 269–279 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-006-9094-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hoehn, T., Drabik, A., Lehmann, C., et al.: Correlation between severity of disease and reimbursement of costs in neonatal and paediatric intensive care patients. Acta Paediatr. 97, 1438–1442 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.00926.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Vogl, M.: Assessing DRG cost accounting with respect to resource allocation and tariff calculation: the case of Germany. Health Econ. Rev. 2, 15 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/2191-1991-2-15

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Malyar, N., Furstenberg, T., Wellmann, J., et al.: Recent trends in morbidity and in-hospital outcomes of in-patients with peripheral arterial disease: a nationwide population-based analysis. Eur. Heart J. 34, 2706–2714 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/eht288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Freisinger, E., Fuerstenberg, T., Malyar, N.M., et al.: German nationwide data on current trends and management of acute myocardial infarction: discrepancies between trials and real-life. Eur. Heart J. 35, 979–988 (2014)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kaier, K., Reinecke, H., Naci, H., et al.: The impact of post-procedural complications on reimbursement, length of stay and mechanical ventilation among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation in Germany. Eur. J. Health Econ. 1–6 (2017)

  24. Reinöhl, J., Kaier, K., Reinecke, H., et al.: Effect of availability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement on clinical practice. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 2438–2447 (2015)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Reinöhl, J., Kaier, K., Reinecke, H., et al.: Effect of availability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement on clinical practice: supplementary appendix. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 2438–2447 (2015)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fieller, E.C.: Some problems in interval estimation. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 175–85 (1954)

  27. Zack, C.J., Al-Qahtani, F., Kawsara, A., et al.: Comparative outcomes of surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis in Nonagenarians. Am. J. Cardiol. 119, 893–899 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.11.045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sponga, S., Isola, M., Bagur, R., et al.: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients over 85 years old. Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. Published Online First: 16 June 2017. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivx180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Adams, D.H., Popma, J.J., Reardon, M.J., et al.: Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. N. Engl. J. Med. 370, 1790–1798 (2014)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gurvitch, R., Tay, E.L., Wijesinghe, N., et al.: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: lessons from the learning curve of the first 270 high-risk patients. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 78, 977–984 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.22961

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lunardi, M., Pesarini, G., Zivelonghi, C., et al.: Clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation: from learning curve to proficiency. Open Heart. 3, e000420 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2016-000420

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Klaus Kaier & Philip Hehn

  2. Department of Cardiology and Angiology I, Heart Center Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79104, Freiburg, Germany

    Klaus Kaier, Constantin von zur Mühlen, Andreas Zirlik, Manfred Zehender, Christoph Bode & Peter Stachon

  3. Department of Cardiac and Vascular Surgery, Heart Center Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Wolfgang Bothe

  4. Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria

    Andreas Zirlik

Authors
  1. Klaus Kaier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Constantin von zur Mühlen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andreas Zirlik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wolfgang Bothe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Philip Hehn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Manfred Zehender
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Christoph Bode
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Peter Stachon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Stachon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 42 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaier, K., von zur Mühlen, C., Zirlik, A. et al. Estimating the additional costs per life saved due to transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a secondary data analysis of electronic health records in Germany. Eur J Health Econ 20, 625–632 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-018-1023-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-018-1023-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation