A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Heart Valve Replacement With a Mechanical Versus Biological Prosthesis in Patients With Heart Valvular Disease Publisher Pubmed



Azari S¹ ; Rezapour A² ; Omidi N³ ; Alipour V² ; Tajdini M³ ; Sadeghian S³ ; Bragazzi NL⁴ Show Affiliations
Source: Heart Failure Reviews Published:2020

Abstract

Heart valve disease (HVD) affects 2.5% of the US population and one million individuals aged 65 years and older in the UK. Given its burden, the aim of the present review was to assess the cost-effectiveness of heart valve replacement with mechanical versus biological prosthesis in HVD patients. We performed a systematic search in various electronic databases from January 1990 to June 2019. Five out of 542 articles were entered into the study, from which 2 papers were subsequently excluded not meeting the minimum number of items of the CHEERS checklist. Quality-Adjusted Life Year, Life Years Gained, and the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) regarding the type of replaced heart valve were extracted and reported. Studies were conducted in three different countries (Iran, France, and USA). ICER ranged from $1253 in Iran to €54,634 in France. Survival rate of mitral mechanical versus biological valves at 10 and 20 years was 72.9% versus 76.0% and 51% versus 30%, respectively. Survival rate at 20 years in patients undergoing atrial valve replacement was 20%. Ten- and 20-year death rates for biological valves were higher with respect to mechanical prosthesis (15.5% versus 8.4% at 10 years), with this difference becoming more relevant at 20 years (36.9% versus 13.9%). Due to higher ICER, mortality rate, and lower success rates in the long term for biological prostheses compared to mechanical ones, these appear to be more suitable for older patients (aged ≥ 70 years). © 2019, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.