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 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.