YingXing Wu, MD, Ruyun Jin, MD, Guangqiang Gao, MD, Gary L

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Ruyun Jin, MD, Gary L. Grunkemeier, PhD, Albert Starr, MD

Advertisements

Max B. Mitchell, MD The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Of mice and men and surgical transcatheter aortic valve insertion

Manuel J. Antunes, MD, PhD, DSc

A cherry blossom moment in the history of heart valve replacement

Clinical event rates with the On-X bileaflet mechanical heart valve: A multicenter experience with follow-up to 12 years John B. Chambers, MD, FRCP,

Influence of the On-X mechanical prosthesis on intermediate-term major thromboembolism and hemorrhage: A prospective multicenter study Vincent Chan,

Challenging homografts as the holy grail for aortic valve endocarditis

In which patients is transcatheter aortic valve replacement potentially better indicated than surgery for redo aortic valve disease? Long-term results.

Harald C. Eichstaedt, MD, Jerry Easo, MD, Tobias Härle, MD, Otto E

Usefulness of microsimulation to translate valve performance into patient outcome: Patient prognosis after aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier–Edwards.

Prospective randomized comparison of CarboMedics and St

When is the Ross operation a good option to treat aortic valve disease? Tirone E. David, MD, Anna Woo, MD, Susan Armstrong, MSc, Manjula Maganti, MSc

Incidence and outcomes of right-sided endocarditis in patients with congenital heart disease after surgical or transcatheter pulmonary valve implantation

Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: Changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society.

Anticoagulation early after mechanical valve replacement: Improved management with patient self-testing Jess L. Thompson, MD, Harold M. Burkhart, MD,

Eight-year results after aortic valve replacement with the CryoLife-O’Brien Stentless Aortic Porcine Bioprosthesis Ivo Martinovic, MD, Ibrahim Farah,

Ruyun Jin, MD, Gary L. Grunkemeier, PhD, Albert Starr, MD

Patient outcome after aortic valve replacement with a mechanical or biological prosthesis: Weighing lifetime anticoagulant-related event risk against.

Centers for Disease Control “increased-risk” organ donor: Not so risky? Francis D. Pagani, MD, PhD The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Bayesian stopping guidelines for heart valve premarket approval studies Gary L. Grunkemeier, PhD, YingXing Wu, MD, MS, Lian Wang, MS, Cody Hamilton, PhD

Form ever follows function

William M. DeCampli, MD, PhD

New treatment approaches create new disease processes: A short guide on how to reduce unexpected events to a minimum Martin Czerny, MD, MBA The Journal.

Bicuspid aortic valve aortopathy: One size fits all?

Hsin-Fang Li, PhD, YingXing Wu, MD, Mansen Wang, PhD, Gary L

Risk-corrected impact of mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves on long-term mortality after aortic valve replacement Ole Lund, MD, PhD, Martin Bland,

YingXing Wu, MD, Eric G. Butchart, FRCS, Jeffrey S

Gary L. Grunkemeier, PhD, Ruyun Jin, MD, Albert Starr, MD

Aldo R. Castañeda, MD, PhD: Recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award and 74th president of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Pedro J.

Valve replacement surgery for older individuals with preoperative atrial fibrillation: The effect of prosthetic valve choice and surgical ablation Ho.

Long-term evaluation of biological versus mechanical prosthesis use at reoperative aortic valve replacement Vincent Chan, MD, MPH, B-Khanh Lam, MD, MPH,

Nationwide cohort study of mitral valve repair versus replacement for infective endocarditis Hsiu-An Lee, MD, Yu-Ting Cheng, MD, Victor Chien-Chia Wu,

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients

Aortic valve replacement with the Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis: Durability results up to 21 years Charles A. Yankah, MD, PhD, Miralem Pasic, MD,

Michele Gallo, MD, Gino Gerosa, MD

A first start for lung transplantation?

Twenty-year experience with the St Jude Medical mechanical valve prosthesis John S Ikonomidis, MD, PhD, John M Kratz, MD, Arthur J Crumbley, MD, Martha.

Effect of hydroxyethyl starch on bleeding after cardiopulmonary bypass: A meta-analysis of randomized trials Roberta J. Navickis, PhD, Gary R. Haynes,

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement: Both excellent therapies J. James Edelman, MBBS(Hons), PhD, Vinod H. Thourani,

Fifteen years of experience with ATS mechanical heart valve prostheses

Torsten Doenst, MD, PhD, Markus Richter, MD

Mechanical heart valves: are two leaflets better than one?

Surgery for aortic and mitral valve disease in the United States: A trend of change in surgical practice between 1998 and 2005 Scott D. Barnett, PhD,

When should a mechanical tricuspid valve replacement be considered?

A cherry blossom moment in the history of heart valve replacement

Ruyun Jin, MD, Anthony P. Furnary, MD, Stephanie C. Fine, MA, Eugene H

Fenton H. McCarthy, MD, MS, Nimesh D. Desai, MD, PhD

Replicating the success of mitral valve repair in the aortic valve

Thirty-year experience with a bileaflet mechanical valve prosthesis

Commentary: Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: A high standard of comparison for transcatheter aortic valve implantation Aaron Martin, MD, Michael.

Passing the torch The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Biomaterials for heart valve replacement: Conjectures and refutations

Hans-Joachim Schäfers, MD

The origins of open heart surgery at the University of Minnesota 1951 to 1956 Richard A. DeWall, MD The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Jeffrey H. Shuhaiber, MD, Jeff Moore, MS, David B. Dyke, MD

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Discussion The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

The future of cardiac surgery training: A survival guide

The continuing challenge of congenital heart disease in China

Reliability of risk algorithms in predicting early and late operative outcomes in high-risk patients undergoing aortic valve replacement Todd M. Dewey,

YingXing Wu, MD, Gary L. Grunkemeier, PhD, Albert Starr, MD

Evaluating the best approach to treatment of aortic stenosis: The jury is still out Glen B. Taksler, PhD The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Clinical event rates with the On-X bileaflet mechanical heart valve: A multicenter experience with follow-up to 12 years John B. Chambers, MD, FRCP,

National trends in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements Abby J. Isaacs, MS, Jeffrey Shuhaiber,

Chordal replacement with polytetrafluoroethylene sutures for mitral valve repair: A 25- year experience Tirone E. David, MD, Susan Armstrong, MSc, Joan.

Durability of pericardial versus porcine bioprosthetic heart valves

Which biologic valve should we select for the 45- to 65-year-old age group requiring aortic valve replacement? F. Dagenais, MD, P. Cartier, MD, P. Voisine,

Paul Philipp Heinisch, MD, Thierry Carrel, MD

Is early antithrombotic therapy necessary in patients with bioprosthetic aortic valves in normal sinus rhythm? Andrew W. ElBardissi, MD, MPH, Daniel.

Presentation transcript:

Cost-effectiveness of aortic valve replacement in the elderly: An introductory study YingXing Wu, MD, Ruyun Jin, MD, Guangqiang Gao, MD, Gary L. Grunkemeier, PhD, Albert Starr, MD The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Volume 133, Issue 3, Pages 608-613 (March 2007) DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2006.10.044 Copyright © 2007 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Mean age of patients who underwent AVR by surgery year. AVR, aortic valve replacement. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2007 133, 608-613DOI: (10.1016/j.jtcvs.2006.10.044) Copyright © 2007 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Number of patients who underwent AVR by age at surgery. AVR, aortic valve replacement. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2007 133, 608-613DOI: (10.1016/j.jtcvs.2006.10.044) Copyright © 2007 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Survival of patients with severe, unoperated aortic valve disease from the literature7-9 (the thin light gray curves are series from literature, and the thick light gray curve is the weighted average) and survival of 4617 patients after AVR from the authors’ series (thick black curve). The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2007 133, 608-613DOI: (10.1016/j.jtcvs.2006.10.044) Copyright © 2007 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 A, Observed survival after AVR (black curve in Figure 3) by follow-up NYHA class. The areas of the different shadings are proportional to the patients’ NYHA status during the follow-up years. For example, the majority of patients lived with NYHA class I or II during their remaining lifetime (big areas of light gray colors). B, Estimated survival (thick gray line in Figure 3) by follow-up NYHA class as if patients in (A) did not undergo operation. The majority of patients would have lived with NYHA class IV during their remaining lifetime (big area of black color). AVR, Aortic valve replacement; NYHA, New York Heart Association. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2007 133, 608-613DOI: (10.1016/j.jtcvs.2006.10.044) Copyright © 2007 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 A, Total life years (light gray bars) and respective QALYs (dark gray bars) after AVR by age at surgery. This shows approximately 75% diminution from perfect health across all age groups after AVR. B, Total life years (light gray bars) and respective QALYs (dark gray bars that are superimposed on the light gray bars) for natural history by age at surgery. This shows approximately 60% diminution from perfect health across all age groups. AVR, Aortic valve replacement; QALY, quality-adjusted life year. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2007 133, 608-613DOI: (10.1016/j.jtcvs.2006.10.044) Copyright © 2007 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 A, Total QALYs gained after AVR by age at surgery. The height of each bar equals the difference of height of the dark gray bars in Figure 5, A and B. B, Mean QALYs gained after AVR by age at surgery (total QALYs gained in Figure 5, A divided by total number of patients in Figure 2 at each age group). AVR, aortic valve replacement; QALY, Quality-adjusted life year. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2007 133, 608-613DOI: (10.1016/j.jtcvs.2006.10.044) Copyright © 2007 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions

Figure 7 A, Total lifetime costs of AVR by age at surgery. B, Mean lifetime costs of AVR by age at surgery (total cost in Figure 7, A divided by total number of patients in Figure 2 at each age group). The mean cost was further broken down into cost of (1) original implantation; (2) ongoing maintenance (physician visit, echocardiogram, and anticoagulation treatment); and (3) treatment of prosthesis valve-related events (thromboembolism, bleeding, endocarditis, perivalvular leak, valve thrombosis, and reoperation). AVR, aortic valve replacement. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2007 133, 608-613DOI: (10.1016/j.jtcvs.2006.10.044) Copyright © 2007 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions

Figure 8 Average CER (cost per QALY) by age at surgery. Error bars indicate 95% ranges from 100× simulation. CER less than $20,000/QALY was judged as very cost-effective, between $20,000/QALY to $100,000/QALY as acceptable, and more than $100,000 as not cost-effective.13,14 The CERs were less than $20,000/QALY for most of the age groups. It was higher for older patients (>80 years), but still less than $100,000/QALY. CER, Cost-effectiveness ratio; QALY, quality-adjusted life year. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2007 133, 608-613DOI: (10.1016/j.jtcvs.2006.10.044) Copyright © 2007 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions