Cost-Effectiveness and Clinical Outcome of Transcatheter Versus Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are becoming increasingly common. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of the two methods.

In this study, cross-sectional retrospective data were collected on 327 patients who underwent SU-AVR (n = 168) and TAVI (n = 159). Homogeneous groups were provided by the "propensity score matching" method, and 61 patients from the SU-AVR group and 53 patients from the TAVI group were included in the study sample.

The two groups did not have statistically different death rates, complications after surgery, lengths of hospital stays, or visits to the intensive care unit. It is stated that the SU-AVR method provides an additional 1.14 Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) compared to the TAVI method. The TAVI was more expensive than the SU-AVR in our study, but the difference was not statistically significant ($40,520.62 vs. $38,405.62, p > 0.05). For SU-AVR, the most expensive factor was the length of stay in the intensive care unit; for TAVI, it was arrhythmia, bleeding, and renal failure.

These bioprostheses are safe and effective treatments for valve stenosis. Clinical outcomes were similar between the two groups. Therefore, clinicians may find it difficult to determine an effective treatment strategy. According to the evaluation made in terms of cost-effectiveness, it was found that the SU-AVR method gave a higher QALY at a lower cost compared to the TAVI method. However, this result is not statistically significant.