Summary
This cost-effectiveness analysis of the CTSN randomised controlled trial compared mitral valve repair versus replacement for severe ischemic mitral regurgitation in 251 patients. Over the 2-year trial period, repair and replacement showed similar costs and QALYs with minimal differences; however, replacement demonstrated more durable correction of mitral regurgitation and fewer cardiovascular readmissions. At 10 years, replacement showed a small and uncertain cost-effectiveness advantage over repair, with marginal improvements in both survival and QALYs.
Regional applicability
This study was conducted in United States healthcare settings and reflects US hospital cost structures and clinical practices. The findings may have limited direct applicability to United Kingdom NHS provision, given differences in healthcare economics, treatment pathways, and cost models, though the comparative clinical outcomes (durability of repair versus replacement) may inform international practice consideration.
Key measures
In-hospital costs, 2-year cumulative costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cardiovascular readmission rates, survival, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios
Outcomes reported
The study compared costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), readmission rates, and survival between mitral valve repair and replacement for severe ischemic mitral regurgitation 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.