Table A15:

Assessment of the Limitations of Studies Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for the Treatment of Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis in People at Intermediate Surgical Risk

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for the treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis in people at intermediate surgical risk
Author, Year	Does the model structure adequately reflect the nature of the health condition under evaluation?	Is the time horizon sufficiently long to reflect all important differences in costs and outcomes?	Are all important and relevant health outcomes included?	Are the estimates of relative treatment effects obtained from best available sources?	Do the estimates of relative treatment effect match the estimates contained in the clinical report?	Are all important and relevant (direct) costs included in the analysis?	Are the estimates of resource use obtained from best available sources?
Tam et al, 201816	Yes (30 d cycles, short-term and long-term complications captured)	Yes (Conservative assumptions made about outcomes occurring after 2 y)	Yes (captures short- and longer-term [2 y] complications, utility data from high-risk cohort)	Yes (didn't use relative effects, but all efficacy inputs from the PARTNER 2 trial)	Yes	Yes (included both procedural costs and complication costs)	Yes (used Ontario sources)
Tam et al, 201817	Yes (30 d cycles, short-term and long-term complications captured)	Yes (Conservative assumptions made about outcomes occurring after 2 y)	Yes (captures short and longer-term [2 y] complications, utility data from high-risk cohort)	Yes (didn't use relative effects, but all efficacy inputs from the SURTAVI trial)	Yes	Yes (included both procedural costs and complication costs)	Yes (used Ontario sources)