A Canadian cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter mitral valve repair with the MitraClip system in high surgical risk patients with significant mitral regurgitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In patients with significant mitral regurgitation (MR) at high risk of mortality and morbidity from mitral valve surgery, transcatheter mitral valve repair with the MitraClip System is associated with a reduction in MR and improved quality-of-life and functional status compared with baseline. The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MitraClip therapy compared with standard of care in patients with significant MR at high risk for mitral valve surgery from a Canadian payer perspective. METHODS: A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the lifetime costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost per life year and QALY gained for patients receiving MitraClip therapy compared with standard of care. Treatment-specific overall survival, risk of clinical events, quality-of-life, and resource utilization were obtained from the Endovascular Valve Edge-to-Edge REpair High Risk Study (EVEREST II HRS). Health utility and unit costs (CAD $2013) were taken from the published literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of alternative assumptions and parameter uncertainty on results. RESULTS: The base case incremental cost per QALY gained was $23,433. RESULTS were most sensitive to alternative assumptions regarding overall survival, time horizon, and risk of hospitalization for congestive heart failure (CHF). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed MitraClip therapy to have a 92% chance of being cost-effective compared with standard of care at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained. STUDY LIMITATIONS: Key limitations include the small number of patients included in the EVEREST II HRS which informed the analysis, the limited data available to inform clinical events and disease progression in the concurrent comparator group, and the lack of a comparator group from a randomized control trial. CONCLUSION: MitraClip therapy is likely a cost-effective option for the treatment of patients at high risk for mitral valve surgery with significant MR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".