Sarraj, A;
Pizzo, E;
Lobotesis, K;
Grotta, JC;
Hassan, AE;
Abraham, MG;
Blackburn, S;
... SELECT Investigators; + view all
(2020)
Endovascular thrombectomy in patients with large core ischemic stroke: a cost-effectiveness analysis from the SELECT study.
Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery
10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-016766.
(In press).
Preview |
Text
Pizzo_Sarraj_JNS_2020.pdf - Accepted Version Download (1MB) | Preview |
Abstract
Background: It is unknown whether endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is cost effective in large ischemic core infarcts. Methods: In the prospective, multicenter, cohort study of imaging selection study (SELECT), large core was defined as computed tomography (CT) ASPECTS<6 or computed tomography perfusion (CTP) ischemic core volume (rCBF<30%) ≥50 cc. A Markov model estimated costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EVT compared with medical management (MM) over lifetime. The willingness to pay (WTP) per QALY was set at $50 000 and $100 000 and the net monetary benefits (NMB) were calculated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) for EVT were assessed in SELECT and other pivotal trials. Results: From 361 patients enrolled in SELECT, 105 had large core on CT or CTP (EVT 62, MM 43). 19 (31%) EVT vs 6 (14%) MM patients achieved modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 0–2 (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.11 to 9.62, P=0.03) with a shift towards better mRS (cOR 2.12, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.31, P=0.04). Over the projected lifetime of patients presenting with large core, EVT led to incremental costs of $33 094 and a gain of 1.34 QALYs per patient, resulting in ICER of $24 665 per QALY. EVT has a higher NMB compared with MM at lower (EVT -$42 747, MM -$76 740) and upper (EVT $155 041, MM $57 134) WTP thresholds. PSA confirmed the results and CEAC showed 77% and 92% acceptability of EVT at the WTP of $50 000 and $100 000, respectively. EVT was associated with an increment of $29 225 in societal costs. The pivotal EVT trials (HERMES, DAWN, DEFUSE 3) were dominant in a sensitivity analysis at the same inputs, with societal cost-savings of $37 901, $86 164 and $22 501 and a gain of 1.62, 2.36 and 2.21 QALYs, respectively. Conclusions: In a non-randomized prospective cohort study, EVT resulted in better outcomes in large core patients with higher QALYs, NMB and high cost-effectiveness acceptability rates at current WTP thresholds. Randomized trials are needed to confirm these results.
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
