Cost-effectiveness study of the MitraClip system for mitral regurgitation treatment in inoperable patients

The study aims to estimate the MitraClip system’s cost-effectiveness compared with optimal medical therapy in adult patients with inoperable mitral regurgitation and assess its impact on the budget of the Russian Federation health system.

Materials and methods. The cost-effectiveness analysis of the MitraClip system was carried out using the Markov model. The time horizon was three & five years. The budget impact analysis (BIA) model compared the costs of treating patients distributed across different management practices. Standard management practice included only optimal medical therapy. Expected management practice included different patient allocation between the MitraClip system and optimal medical therapy. The time horizon for the budget impact analysis was five years. Results. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of the MitraClip system in comparison with optimal medical therapy was 6,271,657 rubles in three years and 3,451,342 rubles in five years. Based on the BIA results of the MitraClip system, its use would lead to an increase in costs by 12.6 billion rubles (+6.09%, minimal scenario), by 37.8 billion rubles (+18.28%, optimal scenario) or by 63 billion rubles (+30.47%, maximum scenario).

Conclusion. As a result of the analysis performed, it was found that economic efficiency is noted with an increasing time horizon of up to five years. The obtained ICER values are comparable with the average values obtained in other foreign cost-effectiveness studies. The use of this technology will lead to an increase in direct medical costs by 6.09% over five years compared to the current management practice. In more comprehensive MitraClip system implementation (maximum scenario), direct medical costs will increase by 30.47% compared to the current management practice.

1. Chikwe J., Walther A., Pepper J. The surgical management of mitral valve disease. Br J Cardiol. 2004; 11(1):42-49

2. Nishimura A.R., Vahanian A., Eleid M.F., Mack M.J. Mitral valve diseasecurrent management and future challenges. The Lancet. 2016; 387(10025):1324-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00558-4

3. Clinical guidelines «Mitral regurgitation». Association of Cardiovascular Surgeons of Russia, Russian Society of Cardiology, 2020. P. 51 (in Russ.).

4. Baumgartner H., Falk V., Bax J.J. et al. ESC/EACTS 2017 Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. European Heart Journal. 2017; 38:2739-2791. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx391

5. Otto C.M., Nishimura A.R., Bonow R.O. et al. AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease. Circulation. 2020; 143:72-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.018

6. Whitlow P.L., Feldman T., Pedersen W.R. et al. Acute and 12-month results with catheter-based mitral valve leaflet repair: the EVEREST II (Endovascular Valve Edge-to-Edge Repair) High Risk Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59(2):130-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.067

7. Rezapour A., Azari S., Arabloo J. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of mitral valve repair with the MitraClip delivery system for patients with mitral regurgitation: a systematic review. Heart Fail Rev. 2021; 26(3):587-601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10741-020-10055-9

8. Gohler A., Geisler B.P., Manne J.M. et al. Utility estimates for decisionanalytic modeling in chronic heart failure-health states based on New York Heart Association classes and number of rehospitalizations. Value Health. 2009; 12:185-187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15244733.2008.00425.x

9. Chaplin S., Scuffham P.A., Alon M., van den Boom G. Secondary prevention after PCI: the cost-effectiveness of statin therapy in the Netherlands. Neth Heart J. 2004; 12:331-336.

10. Boytsov S.A., Paleev F.N. Clinical Approbation Protocol. National Medical Research Center Of Cardiology of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 2020. P. 41 (in Russ.).

11. Fomin I.V. Chronic heart failure in Russian Federation: what do we know and what to do. Russ J Cardiol 2016, 8 (136):7-13 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.15829/1560-4071-2016-8-7-13

12. Scandura S. Mangiafico S. Giaquinet S. Mitral regurgitation: epidemiology, etiology and physiopathology. Percutaneous Treatment of Left Side Cardiac Valves, 2017:49-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-319-59620-4_3

13. Apostolidou E., Maslow A.D., Poppas A. Primary mitral valve regurgitation: Update and review. Glob Cardiol Sci Pract. 2017;2017, (1):e201703. https://doi.org/10.21542/gcsp.2017.3

14. Cameron H.L., Bernard L.M., Garmo V.S., et al. A Canadian cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter mitral valve repair with the MitraClip system in high surgical risk patients with significant mitral regurgitation. J Med Econ. 2014; 17(8):599-615. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2014.923892

15. Mealing S., Feldman T., Eaton J. et al. EVEREST II high risk study based UK cost-effectiveness analysis of MitraClip® in patients with severe mitral regurgitation ineligible for conventional repair/replacement surgery. J Med Econ. 2013; 16(11):1317-1326. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2013.834823

16. Guerin P., Bourguignon S., Jamet N., Marque S. MitraClip therapy in mitral regurgitation: a Markov model for the cost-effectiveness of a new therapeutic option. J Med Econ. 2016; 19(7):696-701. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2016.1157484