Cost-Effectiveness and Clinical Outcome of Transcatheter Versus Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridBAS, TOLGA/0000-0002-9542-6754
dc.authoridindelen, Cenk/0000-0002-3127-355X
dc.authoridKirali, Kaan/0000-0003-0044-4691
dc.contributor.authorIndelen, Cenk
dc.contributor.authorBas, Tolga
dc.contributor.authorKar, Ahmet
dc.contributor.authorErgenc, Ebsar
dc.contributor.authorKarademir, Burcin Cayhan
dc.contributor.authorSismanoglu, Mesut
dc.contributor.authorKirali, Kaan
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-21T16:37:13Z
dc.date.available2025-01-21T16:37:13Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.departmentKırıkkale Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractBackground: Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are becoming increasingly common. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of the two methods. Methods: In this study, cross-sectional retrospective data were collected on 327 patients who un-derwent SU-AVR (n = 168) and TAVI (n = 159). Homo-geneous groups were provided by the propensity score matching method, and 61 patients from the SU-AVR group and 53 patients from the TAVI group were included in the study sample. Results: The two groups did not have sta-tistically different death rates, complications after surgery, lengths of hospital stays, or visits to the intensive care unit. It is stated that the SU-AVR method provides an additional 1.14 Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) compared to the TAVI method. The TAVI was more expensive than the SU-AVR in our study, but the difference was not statistically significant ($40,520.62 vs. $38,405.62, p > 0.05). For SU-AVR, the most expensive factor was the length of stay in the intensive care unit; for TAVI, it was arrhythmia, bleed-ing, and renal failure. Conclusions: These bioprostheses are safe and effective treatments for valve stenosis. Clini-cal outcomes were similar between the two groups. There-fore, clinicians may find it difficult to determine an effec-tive treatment strategy. According to the evaluation made in terms of cost-effectiveness, it was found that the SU-AVR method gave a higher QALY at a lower cost compared to the TAVI method. However, this result is not statistically significant.
dc.identifier.doi10.1532/hsf.5445
dc.identifier.endpageE291
dc.identifier.issn1098-3511
dc.identifier.issn1522-6662
dc.identifier.issue3
dc.identifier.pmid37401432
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85164002582
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3
dc.identifier.startpageE284
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1532/hsf.5445
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12587/24426
dc.identifier.volume26
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001022809900003
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherForum Multimedia Publishing, Llc
dc.relation.ispartofHeart Surgery Forum
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.snmzKA_20241229
dc.subjectcost-effectiveness; transcatheter aortic valve implantation; sutureless aortic valve replacement
dc.titleCost-Effectiveness and Clinical Outcome of Transcatheter Versus Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WOS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu

Kişisel bilgilerinizi şu amaçlarla toplar ve işleriz: Kimlik Doğrulama, Tercihler, Onay ve İstatistikler.
Daha fazla bilgi edinmek için lütfen gizlilik politikası sayfamızı okuyun.

Özelleştirme