Cost consequence analysis of use of a balloon expandable vascular access system and standard vascular sheath for transcatheter aortic valve implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vascular complications are an important complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality as well as cost. The Solopath device is an expandable vascular access system that has previously been shown to be associated with lower rates of vascular complications. This study sought to evaluate the impact of the use of this system on vascular complications and costs in a decision model analysis. METHODS: A cost-consequence analysis was undertaken utilizing event rate data from the PARTNER trials and a published retrospective analysis of the Solopath device. The decision model estimated costs and benefits in a hypothetical cohort of patients with aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI using either a standard sheath or Solopath. The modeled analysis compared the occurrence of vascular complications and mortality at 30 days and 1 year using TreeAge Pro. RESULTS: The decision model demonstrated that use of the Solopath sheath resulted in 36 fewer major vascular complications, three fewer deaths at 30 days, and five fewer deaths at 1 year, resulting in a discounted cost savings of $846 CDN. Results were sensitive to decreasing rates of vascular complications with newer generation devices, however maintained modest cost-savings. CONCLUSIONS: Reduction in vascular complications is an important part of improving care for TAVI patients. The Solopath vascular access device offers an alternative to standard sheaths with a potential reduction in complications and cost-savings.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".