Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: overoptimistic study results and a call for publication of complete trial results
  1. Mattias Neyt1,
  2. Hans Van Brabandt1,2
  1. 1KCE, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, Brussels, Belgium
  2. 2CEBAM, Belgian Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and Branch of the Dutch Cochrane Centre, Leuven, Belgium
  1. Correspondence to Dr Mattias Neyt, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Kruidtuinlaan 55, Brussels 1000, Belgium; mattias.neyt{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

To the Editor We read with interest the article ‘Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients ineligible for conventional aortic valve replacement’ published in Heart.1 In 2011, we prepared a Health Technology Assessment report on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) at the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), including a critical appraisal of the PARTNER trial and a health-economic evaluation. The economic evaluation in Heart concludes that TAVI is highly likely to be a cost-effective treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are currently ineligible for surgical aortic valve replacement. Based on our critical appraisal of the PARTNER trial and the economic evaluation, we argue that the results and conclusions of the industry-sponsored economic evaluation are overoptimistic.

First, only the most favourable results seen in inoperable patients (PARTNER cohort B) were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.2 At the FDA meeting of 20 July 2011, additional data related to the randomised Continued Access trial were briefly presented. This trial was performed according to the same study protocol as the pivotal PARTNER cohort B. Whereas in the latter, 1-year mortality was much better with TAVI than with standard treatment, it was worse in the former (table 1).

View this table:
Table 1

Thirty-day and 1-year mortality rates in the PARTNER pivotal and Continued Access trial (cohort B)

In the pivotal trial, in contrast to the authors' claim, baseline characteristics were not well balanced: the logistic EuroSCORE, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation and other characteristics all favoured the TAVI group. Anatomically inoperable patients are also over-represented in …

View Full Text


  • Linked article 301886.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

  • PostScript
    Maureen Watt Stuart Mealing Mark Sculpher James Eaton Pascale Brasseur Rachele Busca Stephen Palmer Neil Moat Nicolo Piazza