BACKGROUND:Renal-artery stenosis can be associated with difficult to control hypertension, although renal-artery stenting has not been shown to improve clinical outcomes. Alternative antihypertensive medications could potentially result in quality of life benefits with renal-artery stenting. METHODS AND RESULTS:We performed a pre-specified quality of life sub-study of the CORAL trial-multicenter, randomized, open-label trial of renal-artery stenting vs. medical therapy in patients with atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis. Longitudinal growth curve models were used to compare the Physical Symptoms Distress Index (PSDI), SF-36, and EQ-5D scores over time between treatment groups. We also sought to validate the approach of assessing quality of life in hypertension studies. Among 906 patients (mean age 69.2 ± 9.1 years, 49.7% men), symptom frequency and distress due to side effects from antihypertensive medications changed minimally over time, with no significant differences between treatment groups. There were also no clinically significant differences between treatment groups for the SF-36 and its subscales or the EQ-5D. In internal validation of the quality of life measures, the PSDI correlated well with number/type of antihypertensive medications, and generic health status measures correlated with late clinical events. CONCLUSIONS:In a large, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, we found no significant benefit of routine renal-artery stenting over medical management for the treatment of atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis in terms of disease-specific or generic quality of life measures. As these quality of life measures are important to patients and are associated with medication compliance, future studies of antihypertensive treatments should consider including these quality of life measures as secondary outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00081731.

BACKGROUND:Transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (TMVr) improves symptoms and survival for patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and severe secondary mitral regurgitation despite guideline-recommended medical therapy (GRMT). Whether TMVr is cost-effective from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective is unknown. METHODS:We used patient-level data from the Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation (COAPT) trial to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of TMVr +GRMT versus GRMT alone from an NHS perspective. Costs for the TMVr procedure were based on standard English tariffs and device costs. Subsequent costs were estimated based on data acquired during the trial. Health utilities were estimated using the Short-Form 6-Dimension Health Survey. RESULTS:Costs for the index procedural hospitalisation were £18 781, of which £16 218 were for the TMVr device. Over 2-year follow-up, TMVr reduced subsequent costs compared with GRMT (£10 944 vs £14 932, p=0.006), driven mainly by reductions in heart failure hospitalisations; nonetheless, total 2-year costs remained higher with TMVr (£29 165 vs £14 932, p<0.001). When survival, health utilities and costs were projected over a lifetime, TMVr was projected to increase life expectancy by 1.57 years and quality-adjusted life expectancy by 1.12 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of £21 980, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £23 270 per QALY gained (after discounting). If the benefits of TMVr observed in the first 2 years were maintained without attenuation, the ICER improved to £12 494 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS:For patients with HFrEF and severe secondary mitral regurgitation similar to those enrolled in COAPT, TMVr increases life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy compared with GRMT at an ICER that represents good value from an NHS perspective.

Introduction Evaluation of health status benefits, cost-effectiveness, and value of new heart failure therapies is critical for supporting their use. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) measures patients' heart failure-specific health status but does not provide utilities needed for cost-effectiveness analyses. We mapped the KCCQ scores to EQ-5D scores so that estimates of societal-based utilities can be generated to support economic analyses. Methods Using data from two US cohort studies, we developed models for predicting EQ-5D utilities (3L and 5L versions) from the KCCQ (23- and 12-item versions). In addition to predicting scores directly, we considered predicting the five EQ-5D health state items and deriving utilities from the predicted responses, allowing different countries' health state valuations to be used. Model validation was performed internally via bootstrap and externally using data from two clinical trials. Model performance was assessed using R-2, mean prediction error, mean absolute prediction error, and calibration of observed vs. predicted values. Results The EQ-5D-3L models were developed from 1000 health status assessments in 547 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), while the EQ-5D-5L model was developed from 3925 patients with HFrEF. For both versions, models predicting individual EQ-5D items performed as well as those predicting utilities directly. The selected models for the 3L had internally validated R-2 of 48.4-50.5% and 33.7-45.6% on external validation. The 5L version had validated R-2 of 57.7%. Conclusion Mappings from the KCCQ to the EQ-5D can yield the estimates of societal-based utilities to support cost-effectiveness analyses when EQ-5D data are not available.

Background: Older adults with comorbidities who are at extreme risk for surgical aortic valve replacement may be appropriate candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We present the 5-year clinical, echocardiographic, and health status outcomes of such patients treated with CoreValve self-expanding supra-annular TAVR. Methods: The CoreValve US Extreme Risk Pivotal Trial was a prospective, nonrandomized, single-arm clinical trial of TAVR at 41 sites in the United States. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality or major stroke. Secondary outcomes included echocardiographic parameters and patient-reported health status, assessed with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. Results: Between February 2011 and August 2012, 639 patients with severe aortic stenosis at extreme surgical risk underwent attempted TAVR (mean age 82.8±8.4 years, 53% women, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality 10.4±5.6%, 77% iliofemoral access). The 5-year Kaplan-Meier rate of death or major stroke was 72.6% ([95% CI, 68.4%–76.7%]; death 71.6%, major stroke 11.5%), with no significant differences according to access site. Among patients who survived 5 years, mean transvalvular gradient was 7.5±5.9 mm Hg, and 3.1% had moderate or severe aortic regurgitation. Health status measures improved significantly by 1 month after TAVR through 1 year (mean change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire–Overall Summary score 24.8 points [95% CI, 22.4–27.2]). Beyond 1 year, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire–Overall Summary score decreased gradually but remained significantly improved from pre-TAVR through 5 years of follow-up among surviving patients (mean change from baseline, 14.3 points [95% CI, 10.7–17.9]). Conclusions: Patients with severe aortic stenosis at extreme surgical risk who are treated with self-expanding supra-annular TAVR have high 5-year mortality. However, the short-term benefits of TAVR in terms of valve hemodynamics and quality of life are mostly preserved among surviving patients at 5 years, thereby supporting the continued use of TAVR in these challenging patients. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01240902.

BACKGROUND In patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at low surgical risk, treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) results in lower rates of death, stroke, and rehospitalization at 1 year compared with surgical aortic valve replacement; however, the effect of treatment strategy on health status is unknown. OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare health status outcomes of TAVR versus surgery in low-risk patients with severe AS. METHODS Between March 2016 and October 2017, 1,000 low-risk patients with AS were randomized to transfemoral TAVR using a balloon-expandable valve or surgery in the PARTNER 3 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial. Health status was assessed at baseline and 1, 6, and 12 months using the KCCQ (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire), SF-36 (Short Form-36 Health Survey), and EQ-5D (EuroQoL). The primary endpoint was change in KCCQ-OS (KCCQ Overall Summary) score over time. Longitudinal growth curve modeling was used to compare changes in health status between treatment groups over time. RESULTS At 1 month, TAVR was associated with better health status than surgery (mean difference in KCCQ-OS 16.0 points; p < 0.001). At 6 and 12 months, health status remained better with TAVR, although the effect was reduced (mean difference in KCCQ-OS 2.6 and 1.8 points respectively; p < 0.04 for both). The proportion of patients with an excellent outcome (alive with KCCQ-OS >= 75 and no significant decline from baseline) was greater with TAVR than surgery at 6 months (90.3% vs. 85.3%; p = 0.03) and 12 months (87.3% vs. 82.8%; p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS Among low-risk patients with severe AS, TAVR was associated with meaningful early and late health status benefits compared with surgery. (C) 2019 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Background: In patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at intermediate surgical risk, treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) results in similar rates of death or stroke at 2 years. Whether TAVR is cost-effective compared with SAVR for intermediate-risk patients remains uncertain. Methods: Between 2011 and 2014, 3110 intermediate-risk AS patients were treated with TAVR or SAVR in the PARTNER 2 trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves 2). A total of 2032 patients were randomized to receive TAVR using the SAPIEN XT valve (XT-TAVR) or SAVR in the PARTNER 2A trial, whereas the PARTNER S3i registry included an additional 1078 patients treated with TAVR using the SAPIEN 3 valve (S3-TAVR), which offers a lower delivery profile and sealing skirt designed to reduce paravalvular regurgitation compared with XT-TAVR. Procedural costs were estimated using measured resource utilization. Other in-trial costs were assessed by linkage of trial data with Medicare claims (n=2333) or by linear regression models for unlinked patients (n=682). Health utilities were estimated using the EQ-5D at baseline and 1, 12, and 24 months. Using a Markov model informed by in-trial costs, utilities, and survival data, lifetime cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the US healthcare system was estimated in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Although procedural costs were ≈$20 000 higher with TAVR than SAVR, total cost differences for the index hospitalization were only $2888 higher with XT-TAVR ( P =0.014) and were $4155 lower with S3-TAVR ( P <0.001) owing to reductions in length of stay with TAVR. Follow-up costs were significantly lower with XT-TAVR (Δ=−$9304; P <0.001) and S3-TAVR (Δ=−$11 377; P <0.001) than with SAVR. Over a lifetime horizon, TAVR was projected to lower total costs by $8000 to $10 000 and to increase quality-adjusted survival by 0.15 to 0.27 years. XT-TAVR and S3-TAVR were found to be economically dominant compared with SAVR in 84% and 97% of bootstrap replicates, respectively. Conclusions: Among intermediate-risk AS patients, TAVR is projected to be economically dominant from the perspective of the US healthcare system by providing both greater quality-adjusted life expectancy and lower long-term costs than SAVR. If long-term data demonstrate comparable late mortality with TAVR and SAVR, these findings suggest that TAVR might be the preferred treatment strategy for intermediate-risk AS patients based on both clinical and economic considerations. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01314313.

Treatment of secondary (or functional) mitral regurgitation had traditionally been limited to optimal medical therapy because studies have failed to show a survival benefit with mitral valve surgery for this condition. However, recently the Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation (COAPT) trial demonstrated a significant decrease in heart failure hospitalizations and mortality in patients with severe secondary mitral regurgitation treated with percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (TMVr) using the MitraClip device compared with medical therapy. Based o the results of the COAPT trial, the Food and Drug Administration granted approval for MitraClip treatment of patients with severe secondary mitral regurgitation in March 2019. In an attempt to understand the economic impact of treating this patient population with TMVr using the MitraClip device, a formal cost-effectiveness analysis was performed alongside the COAPT trial. This review summarizes the methods and results of the economic substudy of the COAPT trial and discusses the value of the MitraClip device from the perspective of the US healthcare system in the treatment of patients with symptomatic heart failure and secondary mitral regurgitation.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate whether transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 valve (S3-TAVR) results in improved quality of life (QoL) compared with previous-generation TAVR devices or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). BACKGROUND In patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, TAVR using the SAPIEN XT valve (XT-TAVR) results in similar QoL compared with SAVR. Compared with SAPIEN XT, the SAPIEN 3 valve offers a lower delivery profile and modifications to reduce paravalvular regurgitation. METHODS Between February and December 2014, 1,078 patients at intermediate surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis were treated with S3-TAVR in the PARTNER S3i (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) trial. QoL was assessed at baseline, 1 month, and 1 year using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36, and EQ-5D. QoL outcomes of S3-TAVR patients were compared with those in the SAVR and XT-TAVR arms of the PARTNER 2A trial using propensity score stratification to adjust for differences between the treatment groups. RESULTS Over 1 year, S3-TAVR was associated with substantial improvements in QoL compared with baseline. At 1 month, S3-TAVR was associated with better QoL than either SAVR or XT-TAVR (adjusted differences in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score 15.6 and 3.7 points, respectively; p < 0.001). At 1 year, the differences in QoL between S3-TAVR and both SAVR and XT-TAVR were reduced but remained statistically significant (adjusted differences 2.0 and 2.2 points, respectively; p < 0.05). Similar results were seen for generic QoL outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Among patients at intermediate surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis, S3-TAVR resulted in improved QoL at both 1 month and 1 year compared with both XT-TAVR and SAVR. (c) 2018 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

BACKGROUND In the SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) trial, patients with 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (CAD) had improved long-term outcomes with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES), improvements driven mainly by differences in myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization.OBJECTIVES This study compared the long-term quality-of-life benefits of DES-PCI versus CABG for patients with 3-vessel or left main CAD.METHODS Between 2005 and 2007, the SYNTAX trial randomized 1,800 patients with 3-vessel or left main CAD to either CABG or DES-PCI. Health status was assessed at baseline and at 1, 6, 12, 36, and 60 months by using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey.RESULTS At 5-year follow-up, CABG was superior to DES-PCI on several SAQ domains including angina frequency and physical function, as well as the role physical and role emotional scales of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. Subgroup analysis demonstrated a significant interaction between angiographic complexity (as assessed by the SYNTAX score) and angina relief (mean difference in the SAQ angina frequency score for CABG vs. PCI of -0.9, 3.3, and 3.9 points for low, intermediate, and high SYNTAX score patients, respectively; p = 0.048 for interaction).CONCLUSIONS Among patients with 3-vessel or left main CAD, both CABG and DES-PCI were associated with substantial and sustained quality-of-life benefits over 5 years of follow-up. In general, CABG resulted in greater angina relief, although the absolute treatment benefit was small. Angina relief at 5 years was enhanced with CABG among patients with high SYNTAX scores, a finding reinforcing the recommendation that CABG should be strongly preferred for such patients. (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery [SYNTAX]; NCT00114972) (C) 2017 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Importance:In patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at intermediate surgical risk, treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) results in similar 2-year survival. The effect of TAVR vs SAVR on health status in patients at intermediate surgical risk is unknown. Objective:To compare health-related quality of life among intermediate-risk patients with severe AS treated with either TAVR or SAVR. Design, Setting, and Participants:Between December 2011 and November 2013, 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe AS were randomized to TAVR with the Sapien XT valve or SAVR in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve 2 Trial and were followed up for 2 years. Data analysis was conducted between March 1, 2016, to April 30, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures:Health status was assessed at baseline, 1 month, 1 year, and 2 years using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) (23 items covering physical function, social function, symptoms, self-efficacy and knowledge, and quality of life on a 0- to 100-point scale; higher scores indicate better quality of life), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (36 items covering 8 dimensions of health status as well as physical and mental summary scores; higher scores represent better health status), and EuroQOL-5D (assesses 5 dimensions of general health on a 3-level scale, with utility scores ranging from 0 [death] to 1 [ideal health]). Analysis of covariance was used to examine changes in health status over time, adjusting for baseline status. Results:Of the 2032 randomized patients, baseline health status was available for 1833 individuals (950 TAVR, 883 SAVR) who formed the primary analytic cohort. A total of 1006 (54.9%) of the population were men; mean (SD) age was 81.4 (6.8) years. Over 2 years, both TAVR and SAVR were associated with significant improvements in both disease specific (16-22 points on the KCCQ-OS scale) and generic health status (3.9-5.1 points on the SF-36 physical summary scale). At 1 month, TAVR was associated with better health status than SAVR, but this difference was restricted to patients treated via transfemoral access (mean difference in the KCCQ overall summary [KCCQ-OS] score, 14.1 points; 95% CI, 11.7 to 16.4; P < .01) and was not seen in patients treated via transthoracic access (mean difference in KCCQ-OS, 3.5 points; 95% CI, -1.4 to 8.4; P < .01 for interaction). There were no significant differences between TAVR and SAVR in any health status measures at 1 or 2 years. Conclusions and Relevance:Among intermediate-risk patients with severe AS, health status improved significantly with both TAVR and SAVR through 2 years of follow up. Early health status improvement was greater with TAVR, but only among patients treated via transfemoral access. Longer term follow-up is needed to assess the durability of quality-of-life improvement with TAVR vs SAVR in this population. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01314313.

Background For patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at extreme surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) leads to improved survival and health status when compared with medical therapy. Whether the early health status benefits of TAVR in these patients are sustained beyond 1 year of follow-up is unknown. Methods and results Six hundred thirty-nine patients with severe AS at extreme surgical risk underwent TAVR in the CoreValve US Extreme Risk Pivotal trial. Health status was evaluated at baseline and at 1, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), the Short-Form-12, and the EuroQoL-5D. Analyses were performed using pattern mixture models to account for both death and missing data andwere stratified by iliofemoral (IF) and non-iliofemoral (non-IF) access. After TAVR, there was substantial health status improvement in disease-specific and generic scales by 6 to 12 months. Although there were small declines in health status after 12months, the initial benefits of TAVR were largely sustained through 3 years for both IF and non-IF cohorts (change from baseline in KCCQ Overall Summary score 19.0 points in IF patients and 14.9 points in non-IF patients; P b.01 for both comparisons). Among surviving patients, clinically meaningful (>= 10 point) improvements in the KCCQ Overall Summary Score at 3 years were observed in 85.0% and 83.4% of IF and non-IF patients respectively. Conclusions Among extreme risk patients with severe AS, TAVR resulted in large initial health status benefits that were sustained through 3-year follow-up. Although late mortality was high in this population, these findings demonstrate that TAVR offers substantial and durable health status improvements for surviving patients.

Background and Purpose Clinical trials have demonstrated improved 90-day outcomes for patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with stent retriever thrombectomy plus tissue-type plasminogen activator (SST+tPA) compared with tPA. Previous studies suggested that this strategy may be cost-effective, but models were derived from pooled data and older assumptions.Methods In this prospective economic substudy conducted alongside the SWIFT-PRIME trial (Solitaire With the Intention for Thrombectomy as Primary Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke), in-trial costs were measured for patients using detailed medical resource utilization and hospital billing data. Utility weights were assessed at 30 and 90 days using the EuroQol-5 dimension questionnaire. Post-trial costs and life-expectancy were estimated for each surviving patient using a model based on trial data and inputs derived from a contemporary cohort of ischemic stroke survivors.Results Index hospitalization costs were $17183 per patient higher for SST+tPA than for tPA ($45761 versus $28578; P<0.001), driven by initial procedure costs. Between discharge and 90 days, costs were $4904 per patient lower for SST+tPA than for tPA ($11270 versus $16174; P=0.014); total 90-day costs remained higher with SST+tPA ($57031 versus $44752; P<0.001). Higher utility values for SST+tPA led to higher in-trial quality-adjusted life years (0.131 versus 0.105; P=0.005). In lifetime projections, SST+tPA was associated with substantial gains in quality-adjusted life years (6.79 versus 5.05), cost savings of $23203 per patient and was economically dominant when compared with tPA in 90% of bootstrap replicates.Conclusions Among patients with acute ischemic stroke enrolled in the SWIFT-PRIME trial, SST increased initial treatment costs, but was projected to improve quality-adjusted life-expectancy and reduce healthcare costs over a lifetime horizon compared with tPA.Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01657461.

Background The impact of different types of extracranial bleeding events on health‐related quality of life and health‐state utility among patients with atrial fibrillation is not well understood. Methods and Results The ENGAGE AF ‐ TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) Trial compared edoxaban with warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation. Data from the EuroQol‐5D ( EQ ‐5D‐3L) questionnaire, prospectively collected at 3‐month intervals for up to 48 months, were used to estimate the impact of different categories of bleeding events on health‐state utility over 12 months following the event. Longitudinal mixed‐effect models revealed that major gastrointestinal bleeds and major nongastrointestinal bleeds were associated with significant immediate decreases in utility scores (−0.029 [−0.044 to −0.014; P <0.001] and −0.029 [−0.046 to −0.012; P =0.001], respectively). These effects decreased in magnitude over time, and were no longer significant for major nongastrointestinal bleeds at 9 months, but remained borderline significant for major gastrointestinal bleeds at 12 months. Clinically relevant nonmajor and minor bleeds were associated with smaller but measurable immediate impacts on utility (−0.010 [−0.016 to −0.005] and −0.016 [−0.024 to −0.008]; P <0.001 for both), which remained relatively constant and statistically significant over the 12 months following the bleeding event. Conclusions All categories of bleeding events were associated with negative impacts on health‐state utility in patients with atrial fibrillation. Major bleeds were associated with relatively large immediate decreases in utility scores that gradually diminished over 12 months; clinically relevant nonmajor and minor bleeds were associated with smaller immediate decreases in utility that persisted over 12 months. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ . Unique identifier: NCT00781391.

BACKGROUND:In patients with a myocardial infarction (MI) 1 to 3 years earlier, treatment with ticagrelor + low-dose aspirin (ASA) reduces the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, or stroke compared with low-dose aspirin alone, but at an increased risk of major bleeding. OBJECTIVES:The authors evaluated cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor + low-dose ASA in patients with prior MI within the prior 3 years. METHODS:The authors performed a prospective economic substudy alongside the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 54) trial, which randomized 21,162 patients to ASA alone, ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily + low-dose ASA, or ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily + low-dose ASA. Medical resource use data were collected over a median 33-month follow-up. Costs were assessed from the U.S. health care system perspective. In-trial data relating to survival, utility, and costs were combined with lifetime projections to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness of the Food and Drug Administration-approved lower-dose ticagrelor regimen (60 mg twice daily). RESULTS:Hospitalization costs were similar for ticagrelor 60 mg and placebo ($2,262 vs. $2,333; 95% confidence interval for difference -$303 to $163; p = 0.54); after inclusion of a daily ticagrelor 60 mg cost of $10.52, total costs were higher for ticagrelor ($10,016 vs. $2,333; 95% CI: $7,441 to $7,930; p < 0.001). In-trial quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were similar (2.28 vs. 2.27; p = 0.34). Over a lifetime horizon, ticagrelor was associated with QALY gains of 0.078 and incremental costs of $7,435, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $94,917/QALY gained. Several high-risk groups had more favorable ICERs, including patients with >1 prior MI, multivessel disease, diabetes, renal dysfunction (all with ICERs $50,000 to $70,000/QALY gained), patients age <75 years (ICER = $44,779/QALY gained), and patients with peripheral artery disease (ICER = $13,427/QALY gained). CONCLUSIONS:For patients with a history of MI >1 year previously, long-term treatment with ticagrelor 60 mg + low-dose ASA yields a cost-effectiveness ratio suggesting intermediate value based on current guidelines. Ticagrelor appears to provide higher value for patients in several recognized high-risk subgroups. (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events [e.g., Death From Heart or Vascular Disease, Heart Attack, or Stroke] in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin [PEGASUS]; NCT01225562).

Background— Ezetimibe, when added to simvastatin therapy, reduces cardiovascular events after recent acute coronary syndrome. However, the impact of ezetimibe on cardiovascular-related hospitalizations and associated costs is unknown. Methods and Results— We used patient-level data from the IMPROVE-IT (Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial) to examine the impact of simvastatin–ezetimibe versus simvastatin–placebo on cardiovascular-related hospitalizations and related costs (excluding drug costs) over 7 years follow-up. Medicare Severity–Diagnosis Related Groups were assigned to all cardiovascular hospitalizations. Hospital costs were estimated using Medicare reimbursement rates for 2013. Associated physician costs were estimated as a percentage of hospital costs. The impact of treatment assignment on hospitalization rates and costs was estimated using Poisson and linear regression, respectively. There was a significantly lower cardiovascular hospitalization rate with ezetimibe compared with placebo (risk ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.90–0.99; P=0.031), mainly attributable to fewer hospitalizations for percutaneous coronary intervention, angina, and stroke. Consequently, cardiovascular-related hospitalization costs over 7 years were $453 per patient lower with ezetimibe (95% confidence interval, −$38 to −$869; P=0.030). Although all prespecified subgroups had lower cost with ezetimibe therapy, patients with diabetes mellitus, patients aged ≥75 years, and patients at higher predicted risk for recurrent ischemic events had even greater cost offsets. Conclusions— Addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome leads to reductions in cardiovascular-related hospitalizations and associated costs, with the greatest cost offsets in high-risk patients. These cost reductions may completely offset the cost of the drug once ezetimibe becomes generic, and may lead to cost savings from the perspective of the healthcare system, if treatment with ezetimibe is targeted to high-risk patients. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00202878

In patients (pts) with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at intermediate surgical risk, treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using the Sapien-3 valve (S3-TAVR) results in improved 1-year survival compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The effect of S3-TAVR vs. SAVR

OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare the health status outcomes for patients treated with either self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR).BACKGROUND In patients at increased surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis is associated with improved 1-year survival compared with AVR. However, elderly patients may be just as concerned with quality-of-life improvement as with prolonged survival as a goal of treatment.METHODS Between 2011 and 2012, 795 patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk were randomized to TAVR or AVR in the CoreValve US Pivotal Trial. Health status was assessed at baseline, 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 12 Questionnaire, and EuroQOL 5-dimension questionnaire; growth curve models were used to examine changes over time.RESULTS Over the 1-year follow-up period, disease-specific and generic health status improved substantially for both treatment groups. At 1 month, there was a significant interaction between the benefit of TAVR over AVR and access site. Among surviving patients eligible for iliofemoral (IF) access, there was a clinically relevant early benefit with TAVR across all disease-specific and generic health status measures. Among the non-IF cohort, however, most health status measures were similar for TAVR and AVR, although there was a trend toward early benefit with TAVR on the Short-Form 12 Questionnaire's physical health scale. There were no consistent differences in health status between TAVR and AVR at the later time points.CONCLUSIONS Health status improved substantially in surviving patients with increased surgical risk who were treated with either self-expanding TAVR or AVR. TAVR via the IF route was associated with better early health status compared with AVR, but there was no early health status benefit with non-IF TAVR compared with AVR. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve (R) System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902) (C) 2015 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to characterize health status outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding bioprosthesis among patients at extreme surgical risk and to identify pre-procedural patient characteristics associated with a poor outcome.BACKGROUND For many patients considering TAVR, improvement in quality of life may be of even greater importance than prolonged survival.METHODS Patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who were considered to be at prohibitive risk for surgical aortic valve replacement were enrolled in the single-arm CoreValve U. S. Extreme Risk Study. Health status was assessed at baseline and at 1, 6, and 12 months after TAVR using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), the Short Form-12, and the EuroQol-5D. The overall summary scale of the KCCQ (range 0 to 100; higher scores = better health) was the primary health status outcome. A poor outcome after TAVR was defined as death, a KCCQ overall summary score (OS) <45, or a decline in KCCQ-OS of 10 points at 6-month follow-up.RESULTS A total of 471 patients underwent TAVR via the transfemoral approach, of whom 436 (93%) completed the baseline health status survey. All health status measures demonstrated considerable impairment at baseline. After TAVR, there was substantial improvement in both disease-specific and generic health status measures, with an increase in the KCCQ-OS of 23.9 points (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.3 to 27.5 points) at 1 month, 27.4 points (95% CI: 24.2 to 30.6 points) at 6 months, 27.4 points (95% CI: 24.1 to 30.8 points) at 12 months, along with substantial increases in Short Form-12 scores and EuroQol-5D utilities (all p < 0.003 compared with baseline). Nonetheless, 39% of patients had a poor outcome after TAVR. Baseline factors independently associated with poor outcome included wheelchair dependency, lower mean aortic valve gradient, prior coronary artery bypass grafting, oxygen dependency, very high predicted mortality with surgical aortic valve replacement, and low serum albumin.CONCLUSIONS Among patients with severe aortic stenosis, TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis resulted in substantial improvements in both disease-specific and generic health-related quality of life, but there remained a large minority of patients who died or had very poor quality of life despite TAVR. Predictive models based on a combination of clinical factors as well as disability and frailty may provide insight into the optimal patient population for whom TAVR is beneficial. (C) 2015 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.