Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 23, 2025
Standardized Technique of Aortic Valve Re-implantation for Valve-sparing Aortic Root Replacement
Published on: December 11, 2017
Savings associated with surgical aortic valve replacement with a RESILIA tissue valve based on seven-year COMMENCE
Eric L Keuffel1, Matt Reifenberger2, Andrew Pellegrini2
1Health Finance & Access Initiative, Ardmore, PA, USA.
Background:
Bioprostheses with RESILIA tissue demonstrate a reduction in calcification and improve health outcomes in pre-clinical and clinical studies. Prior economic analyses which relied on 5 years of evidence from the COMMENCE trial demonstrate financial savings for RESILIA tissue valves relative to mechanical valves after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Given the recent release of 7-year COMMENCE data, this economic evaluation updates the estimate for long-run savings of bioprosthetic valves with RESILIA.
Methods:
Simulation models estimated disease progression across two hypothetical SAVR cohorts (tissue vs. mechanical) of 10,000 patients each in the US. The primary comparison calculated the SAVR-related expenditures associated with each valve type ($US, 2023). Health outcome probabilities were based on the COMMENCE trial though year 7 and projected for an additional 8 years based on prior studies of tissue and mechanical SAVR. Costs for key outcomes (mortality, reoperation, bleeding, thromboembolism, endocarditis) and anticoagulant monitoring were sourced from the literature. Incidence rates of health outcomes associated with mechanical valves relied on relative risks of tissue valve versus mechanical valve patients.
Results:
Seven-year savings are $13,415 (95% CI = $10,472-$17,321) per patient when comparing RESILIA versus mechanical SAVR. Projected 15-year savings were $23,001 ($US, 2023; 95% CI = $17,802-$30,421). Most of the 15-year savings are primarily attributed to lower anti-coagulation monitoring costs ($21,073 in ACM savings over 15 years), but lower bleeding cost (savings: $2,294) and thromboembolism-related expenditures (savings: $852) also contribute. Reoperation and endocarditis expenditures were slightly larger in the RESILIA cohort. If reoperation relative risk reverts from 1.1 to 2.2 (the level in legacy tissue valves) after year 7, savings are $18,064. RESILIA SAVR also reduce costs relative to legacy tissue valves.
Conclusion:
Patients receiving RESILIA tissue valves are projected to have lower SAVR-related health expenditures relative to mechanical and legacy tissue valves.
