Article Text

Download PDFPDF
The Authors' reply
  1. Maureen Watt1,
  2. Stuart Mealing1,
  3. Mark Sculpher2,
  4. James Eaton1,
  5. Pascale Brasseur3,
  6. Rachele Busca3,
  7. Stephen Palmer2,
  8. Neil Moat4,
  9. Nicolo Piazza5
  1. 1Health Economics, Oxford Outcomes Ltd, Oxford, UK
  2. 2Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
  3. 3Medtronic International Trading, Tolochenaz, Switzerland
  4. 4Department of Cardiac Surgery, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK
  5. 5German Heart Center, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Maureen Watt, Health Economics, Oxford Outcomes Ltd, Seacourt Tower, WEst Way, Botley, Oxford OX2 0JJ, UK; maureen.watt{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.

The Authors' reply We agree that it is important for all data relating to the PARTNER3 trial to be made available to inform decisions about the most cost effective management of aortic stenosis. However, in their critique of our model1 Neyt et al2 are correct in that we were only able to take into account evidence available when we undertook our analysis. At that point (our manuscript was submitted to Heart in May 2011) the only PARTNER trial data in the public domain were those published by Leon et al together with its supplementary appendix.3 Having no links with Edwards Lifesciences, we had no access to unpublished PARTNER trial data.

Neyt et al comment that, in the ‘Continued Access’ trial, 1-year mortality with transcatheter aortic valve implant (TAVI) was worse than in the control arm. Interpreting these data requires further information on the study design and the patients recruited, and this does not seem to be …

View Full Text


  • Linked article 301813.

  • Funding Medtronic International Trading Sárl.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles