Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 5, 2026

Full-root Aortic Valve Replacement by Stentless Aortic Xenografts in Patients with Small Aortic Roots
Published on: May 21, 2017
Cost-Effectiveness of Aortic Valve Replacement in Low- and Intermediate-Risk Chinese Patients With Severe Aortic
Jin Peng1,2,3,4, Xinglong Zheng5, Minghuan Jiang1,2,3,4,6
1Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy (J.P., M.J., X.Y., Y.M., M.F., Y.F.), Xi'an Jiaotong University, China.
Insights
In China, neither universal Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) nor a risk-based strategy is cost-effective for severe aortic stenosis patients compared to Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR). Universal SAVR remains the most cost-effective approach for these patient groups.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Health Economics
- Medical Technology Assessment
Background:
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) is debated as an alternative to Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR).
- Severe aortic stenosis management requires evaluating cost-effectiveness, especially in diverse healthcare systems like China's.
- Risk stratification is crucial for optimizing treatment strategies in aortic stenosis.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis in China.
- To compare universal SAVR, universal TAVR, and a risk-based strategy (SAVR for low-risk, TAVR for intermediate-risk).
- To determine the most economically viable aortic valve replacement strategy within the Chinese healthcare context.
Main Methods:
- A decision-analytic model combining decision tree and Markov model was employed.
- Clinical inputs were derived from meta-analysis; cost data utilized Shaanxi Province claims (2019-2021); quality of life measured by EuroQoL-5D.
- Sensitivity analyses (one-way and probabilistic Monte Carlo simulations) assessed model robustness.
Main Results:
- Universal TAVR yielded the most Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) but incurred the highest costs.
- The risk-based strategy and universal TAVR exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold compared to universal SAVR.
- Universal SAVR demonstrated an 89.81% probability of being cost-effective, significantly higher than TAVR strategies.
Conclusions:
- Neither the risk-based strategy nor universal TAVR is cost-effective compared to universal SAVR for low- and intermediate-risk patients in China.
- Universal SAVR remains the preferred cost-effective strategy for severe aortic stenosis in this population.
- Significant reductions in TAVR valve costs could potentially alter cost-effectiveness findings.
Background:
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains debated as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of aortic valve replacement strategies in low- and intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis in China.
Methods:
A decision-analytic model combining decision tree and Markov model was developed to compare outcomes of universal SAVR, universal TAVR, and a risk-based strategy (SAVR in low-risk patients and TAVR in intermediate-risk patients) in a hypothetical cohort of 75-year-old patients with aortic stenosis within the perspective of the Chinese health care system. A meta-analysis was performed to derive the clinical inputs; the 2019 to 2021 claims data from Shaanxi Province were used for cost analysis, and quality of life was measured using EuroQoL-5D. One-way and probabilistic (10 000 Monte Carlo simulations) sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of model results. Primary outcomes included total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
Results:
Universal TAVR gained the most QALYs (6.76 QALYs) with the highest costs (USD 58 949). Compared with universal SAVR, the risk-based strategy gained 0.12 additional QALYs at higher costs (USD 14 046); the ICER (117 048 USD/QALY) exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold (37 657 USD/QALY, 3-fold gross domestic product per capita in China). The ICER of universal TAVR versus universal SAVR (80 526 USD/QALY) also exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold. Sensitivity analysis showed that universal TAVR would be cost-effective if TAVR valve costs were
Conclusions:
The risk-based strategy and universal TAVR appeared not to be cost-effective versus universal SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis in China.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Mitral Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Mitral Stenosis III: Medical Management
Aortic Regurgitation I: Introduction
Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management

