Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 6, 2025

Technique and Patient Selection Criteria of Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy for Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement
Published on: March 26, 2018
Contribution margins and utilization of transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve
Kriyana P Reddy1, Kaitlyn Shultz2, Lauren A Eberly3
1Penn Cardiovascular Quality, Outcomes, and Evaluative Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Insights
Most hospitals profit from transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Positive TAVR contribution margins correlate with increased TAVR utilization, but the difference in profit between TAVR and SAVR does not influence procedure choice.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Medicine
- Health Economics
- Healthcare Management
Background:
- Hospitals face financial challenges balancing demand for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with sustainability.
- Patient eligibility for both TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) may be influenced by hospital financial considerations.
- Understanding the cost and reimbursement landscape for TAVR and SAVR is crucial for assessing procedural access.
Purpose of the Study:
- To analyze the costs, revenues, and contribution margins (CMs) for TAVR and SAVR in the US.
- To determine the association between procedural reimbursement and the utilization of TAVR versus SAVR.
- To identify hospital characteristics linked to positive TAVR contribution margins.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries undergoing isolated TAVR or SAVR (2016-2019).
- Calculation of inpatient revenues, direct costs, and contribution margins (CMs) at the claim level.
- Use of multivariate logistic and linear regressions to assess factors associated with positive TAVR CMs and procedural volume.
Main Results:
- Most hospitals (69.6%) reported positive CMs for TAVR, while nearly all (93.2%) had positive CMs for SAVR.
- Median TAVR revenues, costs, and CMs declined from 2016 to 2019.
- Teaching and for-profit hospital statuses were associated with higher odds of positive TAVR CMs.
Conclusions:
- The majority of hospitals achieve positive contribution margins for both TAVR and SAVR.
- Positive TAVR contribution margins are significantly associated with increased TAVR utilization.
- The financial difference between TAVR and SAVR contribution margins does not appear to drive differential procedural selection.
Background:
Hospitals and health systems must balance the demand for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) against financial sustainability. Patients may be eligible for both TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), but financial realities for hospitals may affect differential access to those therapies. We sought to understand the landscape of costs and reimbursement for TAVR and SAVR in the US and to understand the association of procedural reimbursement with receipt of either.
Methods:
We included fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries undergoing isolated TAVR or SAVR in 2016-2019. For each TAVR and SAVR, inpatient revenues and direct costs were calculated at the claim level. The contribution margin (CM) for each TAVR or SAVR was then calculated as total revenues minus total direct costs, which defines the net profit for the procedure for the hospital. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify hospital characteristics associated with positive TAVR CMs. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess the relationship between relative volume of TAVR cases and relative differences in TAVR versus SAVR CMs at the hospital level.
Results:
Of 542 sites, 377 (69.6%) had positive CMs, and 165 (30.4%) had negative CMs for TAVR; 505 (93.2%) had positive CMs for SAVR. Median revenues, costs, and CMs for TAVR decreased between 2016 and 2019. The median (IQR) total CM per hospital for TAVR decreased from $10,574 ($1,331-$22,259) in 2016 to $6,744 ($6,099-$17,511) in 2019 (P < 0.001). Teaching hospital status (aOR 1.77, 95% CI 1.07-2.93) and for-profit status (aOR 3.7, 95% CI 1.8-7.6) were associated with increased odds of positive TAVR CMs relative to nonteaching hospital status and nonprofit status, respectively, in multivariate logistic regression models. The median (IQR) proportion of TAVR of total AVR was 76.67% (69.6%-82.5%) compared with 74.6% (66.9%-80.4%) at hospitals with negative TAVR CMs (P = .04). There was no significant linear relationship between hospital-level difference in median TAVR and SAVR CMs and hospital-level proportion of TAVR of total AVR in multivariate models.
Conclusions:
Most hospitals had positive CMs for TAVR and nearly all had positive CMs for SAVR. Positive CMs for TAVR for individual hospitals were associated with a significant increase in the utilization of TAVR. However, the magnitude of difference in TAVR versus SAVR CM was not associated with differential procedural use.
Related Concept Videos
Mitral Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Aortic Regurgitation I: Introduction

