Endovascular Thrombectomy with or without Bridging Thrombolysis in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is unclear added benefit of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) with endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness of comparing EVT with IVT versus EVT alone. METHODS: We used a decision tree to examine the short-term costs and outcomes at 90 days after the occurrence of index stroke to compare the cost-effectiveness of EVT alone with EVT plus IVT for patients with stroke. Subsequently, we developed a Markov state transition model to assess the costs and outcomes over 1-year, 5-year, and 20-year time horizons. We estimated total and incremental cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: The average costs per patient were estimated to be $47,304, $49,510, $59,770, and $76,561 for EVT-only strategy and $55,482, $57,751, $68,314, and $85,611 for EVT with IVT over 90 days, 1 year, 5 years, and 20 years, respectively. The cost saving of EVT-only strategy was driven by the avoided medication costs of IVT (ranging from $8,178 to $9,050). The additional IVT led to a slight decrease in QALY estimate during the 90-day time horizon (loss of 0.002 QALY), but a small gain over 1-year and 5-year time horizons (0.011 and 0.0636 QALY). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained, the probabilities of EVT only being cost-effective were 100%, 100%, and 99.3% over 90-day, 1-year, and 5-year time horizons. CONCLUSION: Our cost-effectiveness model suggested that EVT only may be cost-effective for patients with acute ischemic stroke secondary to large vessel occlusion.

Endovascular Thrombectomy With or Without Thrombolysis for Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background: To this date, whether to administer intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) prior to endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for stroke patients still stirs some debate. We aimed to systematically update the evidence from randomized trials comparing EVT alone vs EVT with bridging IVT. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EVT with or without IVT in patients presenting with stroke secondary to a large vessel occlusion. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models to compare functional independence, mortality, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), between EVT and EVT with IVT. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. Results: Of 11,111 citations, we included 6 studies with a total of 2336 participants. We found low-certainty evidence of possibly a small decrease in the proportion of patients with functional independence (risk difference [RD] -2.0%, 95% CI -5.9% to 2.0%), low-certainty evidence that there is possibly a small increase in mortality (RD 1.0%, 95% CI -2.2% to 4.7%), and moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably a decrease in sICH (RD -1.0%, 95% CI -1.6% to .7%) for patients with EVT alone compared to EVT plus IVT, respectively. Conclusion: Low-certainty evidence shows that there is possibly a small decrease in functional independence, low-certainty evidence shows that there is possibly a small increase in mortality, and moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably a decrease in sICH for patients with EVT alone compared to EVT plus IVT.

Endovascular thrombectomy for cerebral venous sinus thrombosis using the Penumbra Indigo® Aspiration System.

We present a 35-year-old male with ulcerative colitis initially admitted for a flare-up who then presented with altered mental status and was found to have extensive cerebral venous sinus thrombosis on computed tomography imaging. The patient underwent successful partial recanalization of the superior sagittal sinus and bilateral transverse sinuses using the Penumbra Indigo® Aspiration System with improved outcomes. To our knowledge, this is the first reported use of this device in the treatment of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.

Endovascular thrombectomy with or without thrombolysis bridging in patients with acute ischaemic stroke: protocol for a systematic review, meta-analysis of randomised trials and cost-effectiveness analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Current published guidelines and meta-analyses comparing endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) alone versus EVT with bridging intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) suggest that EVT alone is non-inferior to EVT with bridging thrombolysis in achieving favourable functional outcome. Because of this controversy, we aimed to systematically update the evidence and meta-analyse data from randomised trials comparing EVT alone versus EVT with bridging thrombolysis, and performed an economic evaluation comparing both strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials comparing EVT with or without bridging thrombolysis in patients presenting with large vessel occlusions. We will identify eligible studies by systematically searching the following databases from inception without any language restrictions: MEDLINE (through Ovid), Embase and the Cochrane Library. The following criteria will be used to assess eligibility for inclusion: (1) adult patients ≥18 years old; (2) randomised patients to EVT alone or to EVT with IVT; and (3) measured outcomes, including functional outcomes, at least 90 days after randomisation. Pairs of reviewers will independently screen the identified articles, extract information and assess the risk of bias of eligible studies. We will use the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool to evaluate risk of bias. We will also use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in evidence for each outcome. We will then perform an economic evaluation based on the extracted data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will not require a research ethics approval because no confidential patient data will be used. We will disseminate our findings by publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal and via presentation at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022315608.

Intravenous cangrelor use for neuroendovascular procedures: a two-center experience and updated systematic review.

Background: The optimal antiplatelet therapy regimen for certain neuroendovascular procedures remains unclear. This study investigates the safety and feasibility of intravenous dose-adjusted cangrelor in patients undergoing acute neuroendovascular interventions. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all consecutive patients on intravenous cangrelor for neuroendovascular procedures between September 1, 2020, and March 13, 2022. We also conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library up to February 22, 2023. Results: In our cohort, a total of 76 patients were included [mean age (years): 57.2 ± 18.2, males: 39 (51.3), Black: 49 (64.5)]. Cangrelor was most used for embolization and intracranial stent placement (n = 24, 32%). Approximately 44% of our patients had a favorable outcome with a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 to 2 at 90 days (n = 25/57); within 1 year, 8% of patients had recurrent or new strokes (n = 5/59), 6% had symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage [sICH] (4/64), 3% had major extracranial bleeding events (2/64), and 3% had a gastrointestinal bleed (2/64). In our meta-analysis, 11 studies with 298 patients were included. The pooled proportion of sICH and intraprocedural thromboembolic complication events were 0.07 [95% CI 0.04 to 1.13] and 0.08 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.15], respectively. Conclusion: Our study found that intravenous cangrelor appears to be safe and effective in neuroendovascular procedures, with low rates of bleeding and ischemic events. However, further research is needed to compare different dosing and titration protocols of cangrelor and other intravenous agents.