<p>Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease in the adult population. A significant aortic stenosis is a serious condition, and if a symptomatic patient is not operated on, it may in most cases cause death. We have examined how many aortic stenoses that were diagnosed during one year, and a follow-up of the patients was also performed. We found 77 patients with significant aortic stenosis with a mean age of 76±13 years. At the time of follow-up 30 (39%) patients, aged between 29-85 years, had been surgically treated with implantation of a valve prosthesis within 2-23 months after the initial examination. At this initial examination 14 of the 30 patients who later underwent surgery had no symptoms. A coronary bypass operation was also performed on seven patients. Postoperative complications were observed in six patients, but none of them was fatal. At the initial examinations there were 26 (34%) patients with a significant aortic stenosis and symptoms who were not treated surgically. The main reason why these patients were not operated was high age, unwillingness, or severe left ventricular dysfunction. This study indicates the importance of repeated clinical and echocardiograpic examinations in patients with aortic stenosis. Almost half of the patients, that later underwent surgery, had no symptoms at the initial examination, but later developed symptoms which made surgery necessary. In one third of the patients no surgery was performed in spite of clinical symptoms.</p>

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease in the adult population. A significant aortic stenosis is a serious condition, and if a symptomatic patient is not operated on, it may in most cases cause death. We have examined how many aortic stenoses that were diagnosed during one year, and a follow-up of the patients was also performed. We found 77 patients with significant aortic stenosis with a mean age of 76±13 years. At the time of follow-up 30 (39%) patients, aged between 29-85 years, had been surgically treated with implantation of a valve prosthesis within 2-23 months after the initial examination. At this initial examination 14 of the 30 patients who later underwent surgery had no symptoms. A coronary bypass operation was also performed on seven patients. Postoperative complications were observed in six patients, but none of them was fatal. At the initial examinations there were 26 (34%) patients with a significant aortic stenosis and symptoms who were not treated surgically. The main reason why these patients were not operated was high age, unwillingness, or severe left ventricular dysfunction. This study indicates the importance of repeated clinical and echocardiograpic examinations in patients with aortic stenosis. Almost half of the patients, that later underwent surgery, had no symptoms at the initial examination, but later developed symptoms which made surgery necessary. In one third of the patients no surgery was performed in spite of clinical symptoms.

Introdução: Uma nova alternativa de tratamento foi desenvolvida, o Implante por Cateter de Bioprótese Valvar Aórtica (TAVI, em inglês, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation), indicado para os pacientes portadores de estenose aórtica grave com várias comorbidades, considerados inoperáveis pelo tratamento cirúrgico convencional. O TAVI ainda não foi incorporado ao rol de políticas de saúde do Brasil pelo Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), tampouco pela Agência Nacional de Saúde Suplementar (ANS), pois há escassez de evidências científicas fundamentadas em análise econômica do procedimento que relatem os resultados e o custo a longo prazo em comparação à cirurgia convencional. Objetivo: Identificar o custo direto médio do implante por cateter de bioprótese valvar aórtica, verificar se há alteração significativa de custo nas diferentes vias de acesso utilizadas e identificar os fatores preditores que possam elevar o custo do procedimento. Método: Trata-se de uma pesquisa com abordagens quantitativa, exploratória, descritiva, transversal, retrospectiva e documental, realizada em um hospital da Secretaria de Estado de Saúde de São Paulo (SES-SP), da Administração Direta, especializado no tratamento de doenças cardiovasculares de alta complexidade. A população do estudo correspondeu aos procedimentos eletivos do TAVI, desde a inauguração da sala híbrida, em março de 2012, até agosto de 2015, totalizando 108 procedimentos, sendo 92 por via transfemoral, 8 por via transapical e 8 por via transaórtica. Resultados: O custo direto médio dos procedimentos TAVI nas três vias totalizou R$ 82.230,94. Por via transfemoral, esse custo médio foi de R$ 82.826,38; por via transaórtica, R$ 79.440,91; e por via transapical, R$ 78.173,41. O total de material e medicamento/solução representou, por via transfemoral, 91,89% do total do custo direto médio do procedimento TAVI; por via transapical, 91,81%; e por via transaórtica, 90,69%, e o custo fixo com a válvula transcateter, no valor de R$ 65 mil, representou 78,47% sobre o custo total do procedimento TAVI, por via transfemoral; 83,14%, por via transapical; e 81,82%, por via transaórtica. O Teste Kruskal-Wallis Teste das Variáveis Contínuas apresentou diferença estatisticamente significativa entre as vias de acesso. No custo total do procedimento TAVI, o Teste de Bonferroni mostrou diferença na associação entre as vias transfemoral e transapical. No entanto, na associação com a via transaórtica, não apresentou diferença estatisticamente significativa. Os fatores preditores que elevaram o custo do procedimento TAVI foram: vias de acesso, duração do procedimento, material de hemodinâmica, medicamento/solução, material de consumo, material de perfusão, total de material e medicamento/solução, recursos humanos, gases medicinais, depreciação e energia. A segunda válvula foi a única variável referente às intercorrências no Centro Cirúrgico que elevou o custo do procedimento. A média de idade dos pacientes com indicação ao TAVI foi de 81,50 ±6,96 anos. Conclusão: O TAVI é um avanço a ser discutido e acompanhado, havendo a necessidade de reforçar novas pesquisas que avaliem os benefícios do tratamento com base nos resultados e custos, a fim de auxiliar na tomada de decisão para incorporação desse tratamento para o público-alvo, melhorando a qualidade de vida dos pacientes e proporcionando a integração destes novamente às atividades diárias. / Introduction: A new treatment alternative has been developed, the Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI), indicated for patients with severe aortic stenosis with various comorbidities deemed inoperable by conventional surgical treatment. TAVI has not yet been incorporated into the Brazilian health policies by the Public Health System (SUS), or by the National Supplementary Health Agency (ANS), because there is a shortage of scientific evidence based on an economic analysis of the procedure that reports the results and the long-term costs compared to conventional surgery. Objective: To identify the average direct cost of the transcatheter aortic valve implantation, to verify if there is significant change of cost in the different access routes used, and to identify predictive factors that could increase the cost of the procedure. Method: This is a study with quantitative, exploratory, descriptive, transversal, retrospective, and documentary approaches, carried out in a hospital of the State Department of Health of São Paulo (SES-SP), of the Direct Administration, specialized in the treatment of high-complexity cardiovascular diseases. The study population corresponded to TAVI elective procedures, from the inauguration of the hybrid room, in March 2012, up to August 2015, totaling 108 procedures, of which 92 were transfemoral, 8 were transapical, and 8 were transaortic. Results: The average direct cost of the TAVI procedures in the three routes totaled R$ 82,230.94. Transfemorally, this average cost was R$ 82,826.38; through the transaortic route, R$ 79,440.91; and through the transapical route, R$ 78,173.41. The total material and medication / solution represented 91.89% of the total average direct cost of the TAVI procedure through the transfemoral route; 91.81% through the transapical route; and 90.69% through the transaortic route, and the fixed cost with the transcatheter valve, in the amount of R$ 65,000.00, represented 78.47% of the total cost of the TAVI procedure through the transfemoral route; 83.14%, through the transapical route; and 81.82% through the transaortic route. The Kruskal-Wallis Test Continuous Variables Test showed a statistically significant difference among the access routes. In the total cost of the TAVI procedure, the Bonferroni Test showed a difference in the association between the transfemoral and transapical routes. However, in the association with the transaortic route, there was no statistically significant difference. Predictive factors that increased the cost of the TAVI procedure were: access routes, length of procedure, hemodynamic material, drug / solution, consumption material, infusion material, total material and medicine/solution, human resources, medical gas, depreciation and energy. The second valve was the only variable related to the complications in the or that increased the cost of the procedure. The mean age of patients with TAVI was 81.50 ± 6.96 years. Conclusion: TAVI is an advance to be discussed and monitored, and there is a need to encourage new studies that evaluate the benefits of treatment based on the results and costs, in order to assist in the decision making for the incorporation of this treatment into its population, improving the quality of life of patients and providing once again their integration into daily activities.

Introdução: Uma nova alternativa de tratamento foi desenvolvida, o Implante por Cateter de Bioprótese Valvar Aórtica (TAVI, em inglês, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation), indicado para os pacientes portadores de estenose aórtica grave com várias comorbidades, considerados inoperáveis pelo tratamento cirúrgico convencional. O TAVI ainda não foi incorporado ao rol de políticas de saúde do Brasil pelo Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), tampouco pela Agência Nacional de Saúde Suplementar (ANS), pois há escassez de evidências científicas fundamentadas em análise econômica do procedimento que relatem os resultados e o custo a longo prazo em comparação à cirurgia convencional. Objetivo: Identificar o custo direto médio do implante por cateter de bioprótese valvar aórtica, verificar se há alteração significativa de custo nas diferentes vias de acesso utilizadas e identificar os fatores preditores que possam elevar o custo do procedimento. Método: Trata-se de uma pesquisa com abordagens quantitativa, exploratória, descritiva, transversal, retrospectiva e documental, realizada em um hospital da Secretaria de Estado de Saúde de São Paulo (SES-SP), da Administração Direta, especializado no tratamento de doenças cardiovasculares de alta complexidade. A população do estudo correspondeu aos procedimentos eletivos do TAVI, desde a inauguração da sala híbrida, em março de 2012, até agosto de 2015, totalizando 108 procedimentos, sendo 92 por via transfemoral, 8 por via transapical e 8 por via transaórtica. Resultados: O custo direto médio dos procedimentos TAVI nas três vias totalizou R$ 82.230,94. Por via transfemoral, esse custo médio foi de R$ 82.826,38; por via transaórtica, R$ 79.440,91; e por via transapical, R$ 78.173,41. O total de material e medicamento/solução representou, por via transfemoral, 91,89% do total do custo direto médio do procedimento TAVI; por via transapical, 91,81%; e por via transaórtica, 90,69%, e o custo fixo com a válvula transcateter, no valor de R$ 65 mil, representou 78,47% sobre o custo total do procedimento TAVI, por via transfemoral; 83,14%, por via transapical; e 81,82%, por via transaórtica. O Teste Kruskal-Wallis Teste das Variáveis Contínuas apresentou diferença estatisticamente significativa entre as vias de acesso. No custo total do procedimento TAVI, o Teste de Bonferroni mostrou diferença na associação entre as vias transfemoral e transapical. No entanto, na associação com a via transaórtica, não apresentou diferença estatisticamente significativa. Os fatores preditores que elevaram o custo do procedimento TAVI foram: vias de acesso, duração do procedimento, material de hemodinâmica, medicamento/solução, material de consumo, material de perfusão, total de material e medicamento/solução, recursos humanos, gases medicinais, depreciação e energia. A segunda válvula foi a única variável referente às intercorrências no Centro Cirúrgico que elevou o custo do procedimento. A média de idade dos pacientes com indicação ao TAVI foi de 81,50 ±6,96 anos. Conclusão: O TAVI é um avanço a ser discutido e acompanhado, havendo a necessidade de reforçar novas pesquisas que avaliem os benefícios do tratamento com base nos resultados e custos, a fim de auxiliar na tomada de decisão para incorporação desse tratamento para o público-alvo, melhorando a qualidade de vida dos pacientes e proporcionando a integração destes novamente às atividades diárias. / Introduction: A new treatment alternative has been developed, the Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI), indicated for patients with severe aortic stenosis with various comorbidities deemed inoperable by conventional surgical treatment. TAVI has not yet been incorporated into the Brazilian health policies by the Public Health System (SUS), or by the National Supplementary Health Agency (ANS), because there is a shortage of scientific evidence based on an economic analysis of the procedure that reports the results and the long-term costs compared to conventional surgery. Objective: To identify the average direct cost of the transcatheter aortic valve implantation, to verify if there is significant change of cost in the different access routes used, and to identify predictive factors that could increase the cost of the procedure. Method: This is a study with quantitative, exploratory, descriptive, transversal, retrospective, and documentary approaches, carried out in a hospital of the State Department of Health of São Paulo (SES-SP), of the Direct Administration, specialized in the treatment of high-complexity cardiovascular diseases. The study population corresponded to TAVI elective procedures, from the inauguration of the hybrid room, in March 2012, up to August 2015, totaling 108 procedures, of which 92 were transfemoral, 8 were transapical, and 8 were transaortic. Results: The average direct cost of the TAVI procedures in the three routes totaled R$ 82,230.94. Transfemorally, this average cost was R$ 82,826.38; through the transaortic route, R$ 79,440.91; and through the transapical route, R$ 78,173.41. The total material and medication / solution represented 91.89% of the total average direct cost of the TAVI procedure through the transfemoral route; 91.81% through the transapical route; and 90.69% through the transaortic route, and the fixed cost with the transcatheter valve, in the amount of R$ 65,000.00, represented 78.47% of the total cost of the TAVI procedure through the transfemoral route; 83.14%, through the transapical route; and 81.82% through the transaortic route. The Kruskal-Wallis Test Continuous Variables Test showed a statistically significant difference among the access routes. In the total cost of the TAVI procedure, the Bonferroni Test showed a difference in the association between the transfemoral and transapical routes. However, in the association with the transaortic route, there was no statistically significant difference. Predictive factors that increased the cost of the TAVI procedure were: access routes, length of procedure, hemodynamic material, drug / solution, consumption material, infusion material, total material and medicine/solution, human resources, medical gas, depreciation and energy. The second valve was the only variable related to the complications in the or that increased the cost of the procedure. The mean age of patients with TAVI was 81.50 ± 6.96 years. Conclusion: TAVI is an advance to be discussed and monitored, and there is a need to encourage new studies that evaluate the benefits of treatment based on the results and costs, in order to assist in the decision making for the incorporation of this treatment into its population, improving the quality of life of patients and providing once again their integration into daily activities.