↓ Skip to main content

The impact of waiting for intervention on costs and effectiveness: the case of transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Overview of attention for article published in HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
The impact of waiting for intervention on costs and effectiveness: the case of transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Published in
HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10198-017-0941-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aida Ribera, John Slof, Ignacio Ferreira-González, Vicente Serra, Bruno García-del Blanco, Purificació Cascant, Rut Andrea, Carlos Falces, Enrique Gutiérrez, Raquel del Valle-Fernández, César Morís-de laTassa, Pedro Mota, Juan Francisco Oteo, Pilar Tornos, David García-Dorado

Abstract

The economic crisis in Europe might have limited access to some innovative technologies implying an increase of waiting time. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the impact of waiting time on the costs and benefits of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis. This is a cost-utility analysis from the perspective of the Spanish National Health Service. Results of two prospective hospital registries (158 and 273 consecutive patients) were incorporated into a probabilistic Markov model to compare quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs for TAVR after waiting for 3-12 months, relative to immediate TAVR. We simulated a cohort of 1000 patients, male, and 80 years old; other patient profiles were assessed in sensitivity analyses. As waiting time increased, costs decreased at the expense of lower survival and loss of QALYs, leading to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for eliminating waiting lists of about 12,500 € per QALY. In subgroup analyses prioritization of patients for whom higher benefit was expected led to a smaller loss of QALYs. Concerning budget impact, long waiting lists reduced spending considerably and permanently. A shorter waiting time is likely to be cost-effective (considering commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds in Europe) relative to 3 months or longer waiting periods. If waiting lists are nevertheless seen as unavoidable due to severe but temporary budgetary restrictions, prioritizing patients for whom higher benefit is expected appears to be a way of postponing spending without utterly sacrificing patients' survival and quality of life.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Master 5 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 17 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 18 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,323,917
of 25,880,422 outputs
Outputs from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#99
of 1,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,679
of 450,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#3
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,880,422 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,322 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 450,829 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.