IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i3p2553-d1052806.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Justification Analysis of Minimally Invasive versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement

Author

Listed:
  • Marko Jovanovic

    (Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases “Dedinje”, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
    Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Igor Zivkovic

    (Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases “Dedinje”, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
    Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Milos Jovanovic

    (Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases “Dedinje”, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Ilija Bilbija

    (Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
    Cardiac Surgery, University Clinical Center of Serbia, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Masa Petrovic

    (Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases “Dedinje”, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
    Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Jovan Markovic

    (Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Ivana Radovic

    (Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
    Transfusiology Clinic, University Clinical Center of Serbia, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Ana Dimitrijevic

    (Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Ivan Soldatovic

    (Institute of Medical Statistics and Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

Abstract

There is no definitive consensus about the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) (MI-AVR) compared to conventional AVR (C-AVR). The aim of this study was to compare the rate of postoperative complications and total hospital costs of MI-AVR versus C-AVR overall and by the type of aortic prosthesis (biological or mechanical). Our single-center retrospective study included 324 patients over 18 years old who underwent elective isolated primary AVR with standard stented AV prosthesis at the Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases “Dedinje” between January 2019 and December 2019. Reintervention, emergencies, combined surgical interventions, and patients with sutureless valves were excluded. In both MI-AVR and C-AVR, mechanical valve implantation contributed to overall reduction of hospital costs with equal efficacy. The cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that C-AVR is cheaper and yielded a better clinical outcome with mechanical valve implantation (67.17 vs. 69.5). In biological valve implantation, MI-AVR was superior. MI-AVR patients had statistically significantly higher LVEF and a lower Euro SCORE than C-AVR patients (Mann–Whitney U-test, p = 0.002 and p = 0.002, respectively). There is a slight advantage to MI-AVR vs. C-AVR, since it costs EUR 9.44 more to address complications that may arise. Complications (mortality, early reoperation, cerebrovascular insult, pacemaker implantation, atrial fibrillation, AV block, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, wound infection) were less frequent in the MI-AVR, making MI-AVR more economically justified than C-AVR (18% vs. 22.1%).

Suggested Citation

  • Marko Jovanovic & Igor Zivkovic & Milos Jovanovic & Ilija Bilbija & Masa Petrovic & Jovan Markovic & Ivana Radovic & Ana Dimitrijevic & Ivan Soldatovic, 2023. "Economic Justification Analysis of Minimally Invasive versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-11, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:3:p:2553-:d:1052806
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/3/2553/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/3/2553/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:3:p:2553-:d:1052806. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.