Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 29, 2025
Technique and Patient Selection Criteria of Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy for Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement
Published on: March 26, 2018
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis (SAVR): A
Karan K Shah1, Daniel Elder2, Mai T H Nguyen3
1National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Department of Cardiology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/karanshahk2.
Background:
Comparative costing studies using real-world data stratified by patient case-mix, are valuable to decision makers for making reimbursement decisions of new interventions. This study evaluated real-world hospital admissions and short-term costs of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with aortic stenosis, stratified by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk scores.
Methods:
Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with a principal diagnosis of aortic stenosis who underwent isolated valve replacement at a single tertiary hospital, January 2012-December 2017. Patients were followed-up for 30 days post-procedure or until hospital discharge if index hospitalisation was greater than 30 days. Intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (days), and costs in 2018 Australian dollars for the index procedure and 30-day follow-up were assessed. Multivariable generalised linear and two-part models with gamma distribution and log link function adjusting for Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk group and key sociodemographic characteristics were used.
Results:
Of 488 patients, 61% males, median age 78 years (IQR 14 years), 221 (45%) received transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI) and 267 (55%) received surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). STS risk scores were low (28%), intermediate (46%) and high (26%) for TAVI patients, and low (85%), intermediate (12%) and high (3%) for SAVR patients. When adjusted, TAVI length of stay was 57% shorter than SAVR (95% CI 31-83%, p<0.001) for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and 64% shorter (95% CI 47-81%, p<0.001) for hospital admissions. TAVI costs were 13% lower than SAVR (95% CI 4-22%, p=0.005).
Conclusion:
This data suggests short-term health care costs are lower for patients with aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI than SAVR. A further roll-out of the TAVI program in hospitals across Australia may result in savings to the health system.
Related Concept Videos
01:26Mitral Stenosis III: Medical Management
01:25Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management