Summary
This cost-effectiveness analysis, based on the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network randomised trial, compared mitral valve repair versus replacement for severe ischaemic mitral regurgitation. At 2 years, costs and QALYs were similar between approaches, but by 10 years, replacement showed a small and uncertain cost-effectiveness advantage driven by reduced cardiovascular readmissions, with continuing incremental benefit projection beyond the trial period.
UK applicability
The findings derive from United States hospital cost data and may have limited direct applicability to UK NHS settings given differences in healthcare pricing, referral pathways, and resource allocation. However, the trial methodology and comparative effectiveness framework could inform UK clinical decision-making regarding surgical approach selection.
Key measures
In-hospital costs, 2-year cumulative costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cardiovascular readmission rates, survival, incremental cost-effectiveness
Outcomes reported
The study compared costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), readmission rates, and survival outcomes between mitral valve repair and replacement over 2, 5, and 10-year time horizons.
Topic tags
Dig deeper with Pulse AI.
Pulse AI has read the whole catalogue. Ask about this record, its theme, or how the findings apply to UK farming and policy — every answer cites the underlying studies.