Search

Introduction: Several studies demonstrate the therapeutic superiority of thrombolysis plus mechanical thrombectomy versus thrombolysis alone to treat stroke., Objective: To analyze the cost-utility of thrombolysis plus mechanical thrombectomy versus thrombolysis in patients with ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion., Methods: Cost-utility analysis. The model used is blended: Decision Tree (first 90 days) and Markov in the long term, of seven health states based on a disease-specific scale, from the Chilean public insurance and societal perspective. Quality-Adjusted Life-Years and costs are evaluated. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic (PSA) analyses were carried out., Results: From the public insurance perspective, in the base case, mechanical thrombectomy is associated with lower costs in a lifetime horizon, and with higher benefits (2.63 incremental QALYs, and 1.19 discounted incremental life years), at a Net Monetary Benefit (NMB) of CLP 37,289,874, and an Incremental Cost-Utility Ratio (ICUR) of CLP 3,807,413/QALY. For the scenario that incorporates access to rehabilitation, 2.54 incremental QALYs and 1.13 discounted life years were estimated, resulting in an NMB of CLP 35,670,319 and ICUR of CLP 3,960,624/QALY. In the scenario that incorporates access to long-term care from a societal perspective, the ICUR falls to CLP 951,911/QALY, and the NMB raises to CLP 43,318,072, improving the previous scenarios. In the DSA, health states, starting age, and relative risk of dying were the variables with the greatest influence. The PSA for the base case corroborated the estimates., Conclusions: Thrombolysis plus mechanical thrombectomy adds quality of life at costs acceptable for decision-makers versus thrombolysis alone. The results are consistent with international studies.

Background: In Ontario, current treatment for eligible patients who have an acute ischemic stroke is intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). However, there are some limitations and contraindications to IVT, and outcomes may not be favourable for patients with stroke caused by a proximal intracranial occlusion. An alternative is mechanical thrombectomy with newer devices, and a number of recent studies have suggested that this treatment is more effective for improving functional independence and clinical outcomes. The objective of this health technology assessment was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new-generation mechanical thrombectomy devices (with or without IVT) compared to IVT alone (if eligible) in patients with acute ischemic stroke., Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature, limited to randomized controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy using stent retrievers and thromboaspiration devices for patients with acute ischemic stroke. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We developed a Markov decision-analytic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy (with or without IVT) versus IVT alone (if eligible), calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using a 5-year time horizon, and conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the robustness of the estimates., Results: There was a substantial, statistically significant difference in rate of functional independence (GRADE: high quality) between those who received mechanical thrombectomy (with or without IVT) and IVT alone (odds ratio [OR] 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.88-3.04). We did not observe a difference in mortality (GRADE: moderate quality) (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.60-1.07) or symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (GRADE: moderate quality) (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.66-1.87). In the base-case cost-utility analysis, which had a 5 year time horizon, the costs and effectiveness for mechanical thrombectomy were $126,939 and 1.484 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (2.969 life-years). The costs and effectiveness for IVT alone were $124,419 and 1.273 QALYs (2.861 life-years), respectively. Mechanical thrombectomy was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $11,990 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of mechanical thrombectomy being cost-effective was 57.5%, 89.7%, and 99.6%, at thresholds of $20,000, $50,000, and $100,000 per QALY gained, respectively. We estimated that adopting mechanical thrombectomy would lead to a cost increase of approximately $1 to 2 million., Conclusions: High quality evidence showed that mechanical thrombectomy significantly improved functional independence and appeared to be cost-effective compared to IVT alone for patients with acute ischemic stroke.

Introduction: The use of mechanical thrombectomy for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke has significantly advanced over the last 5 years. Few data are available comparing the cost and clinical and angiographic outcomes associated with available techniques. The aim of this study is to compare the cost and efficacy of current endovascular stroke therapies., Methods: A single-center retrospective review was performed of the medical record and hospital financial database of all ischemic stroke cases admitted from 2009 to 2013. Three discrete treatment methodologies used during this time were compared: traditional Penumbra System (PS), stent retriever with local aspiration (SRLA) and A Direct Aspiration first Pass Technique (ADAPT). Statistical analyses of clinical and angiographic outcomes and costs for each group were performed., Results: 222 patients (45% men) underwent mechanical thrombectomy. Successful revascularization was defined as Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (TICI) 2b/3 flow, which was achieved in 79% of cases with PS, 83% of cases with SRLA, and 95% of cases with ADAPT. The average total cost of hospitalization for patients was $51,599 with PS, $54,700 with SRLA, and $33 ,11 with ADAPT (p<0.0001). Average times to recanalization were 88 min with PS, 47 min with SRLA, and 37 min with ADAPT (p<0.0001). Similar rates of good functional outcomes were seen in the three groups (PS 36% vs SRLA 43% vs ADAPT 47%; p=0.4)., Conclusions: The ADAPT technique represents the most technically successful yet cost-effective approach to revascularization of large vessel intracranial occlusions., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)