Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 7, 2025

Technique and Patient Selection Criteria of Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy for Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement
Published on: March 26, 2018
Economic Evaluation of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Compared to Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in
Weicong Zhang1, Yake Lou2, Yujiang Liu1
1Department of Ultrasound, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Insights
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is not cost-effective in China compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). TAVR could become cost-effective if its price is reduced by approximately 65%.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Medicine
- Health Economics
- Medical Technology Assessment
Background:
- Aortic stenosis (AS) is a severe condition leading to heart failure and sudden death.
- Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are recommended for intermediate-risk patients.
- The cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR in China remains unexamined.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR compared to SAVR in China.
- To determine the economic viability of TAVR for treating aortic stenosis in the Chinese healthcare system.
Main Methods:
- A combined decision tree and Markov model simulated a 5-year period.
- The primary metric was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).
- Sensitivity analyses (one-way and probabilistic) assessed model robustness.
Main Results:
- TAVR incurred higher costs ($54,573) and yielded slightly better effectiveness (2.826 QALY) than SAVR ($35,002; 2.712 QALY).
- The ICER for TAVR was $170,056/QALY, significantly exceeding China's per capita GDP.
- Device cost was a key factor; TAVR becomes cost-effective if its price drops to $29,766.
Conclusions:
- Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is currently not cost-effective in China.
- A substantial cost reduction (approx. 65%) is necessary for TAVR to achieve cost-effectiveness in China.
Background:
Aortic stenosis (AS) is a severe disease that causes heart failure and sudden death. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are both recommended for patients with intermediate surgical risk, but the cost-effectiveness of TAVR compared to SAVR in China has not been investigated.
Methods:
A combined decision tree and Markov model were conducted to compare the cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR with a 5-year simulation. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), a ratio of incremental costs to incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way sensitive analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted to test the robustness of the model.
Results:
After a simulation of 5 years, the costs of TAVR and SAVR were 54,573 and 35,002 USD, respectively, and the corresponding effectiveness was 2.826 versus 2.712 QALY, respectively. The ICER for the TAVR versus SAVR comparison was 170,056 USD/QALY, which was three times higher than the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in China. One-way sensitive analysis showed that the cost of the TAVR device impacted the ICER. The TAVR could be cost-effective only in the case where its cost is lowered to 29,766 USD.
Conclusion:
TAVR is currently not cost-effective in China, but it could be cost-effective with a reduction of costs to 29,766 USD, which is approximately 65% of the current price.
Related Concept Videos
Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Mitral Stenosis III: Medical Management
Mitral Regurgitation III: Medical Management

