Abstract WP71: Endovascular Thrombectomy With Or Without Bridging Thrombolysis In Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Cost-utility Analysis

Rami Z. Morsi,Yuan Zhang,Meng Zhu,Shitong Xie,Julián Carrión-Penagos,Harsh Desai,Elie Tannous,Sachin A Kothari,Assem Khamis,Ammar Tarabichi,Reena Bastin,Layal Hneiny,Sonam Thind,Elisheva Coleman,James R Brorson,Scott J Mendelson,Ali Mansour,Shyam Prabhakaran,Tareq Kass-Hout

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/str.54.suppl_1.wp71

IF: 10.17

2023-02-04

Stroke

Abstract:Stroke, Volume 54, Issue Suppl_1, Page AWP71-AWP71, February 1, 2023. Introduction:There is clinical equipoise behind bridging intravenous thrombolysis (BT) with endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing BT versus EVT alone.Methods:We conducted a model-based cost-utility analysis comparing the cost-effectiveness of BT vs EVT only for patients with acute ischemic stroke. We used a decision tree to examine the short-term costs and outcomes at 90 days after the index stroke, and developed a Markov state transition model to assess the costs and outcomes over 1-year, 5-year, and 20-year time horizons. Clinical outcome inputs were derived from our systematic review. We considered the impact of disability and recurrent stroke on mortality risk, health-related quality of life, and costs. We estimated total and incremental cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Probabilistic analysis was used to calculate the reference case estimates.Results:The average costs per patient were estimated to be 57,814, 84,946 for EVT only strategy, and 49,556, 75,898 for BT over 90-day, 1-year, 5-year, and 20-year, respectively. The cost saving of EVT only strategy was driven by the avoided medication costs of IVT (ranging from 9,048). The additional thrombolytics led to slight decrease in QALY estimate during the 90-day time horizon (loss of 0.0016 QALY), but a small gain over 1-year, 5-year, and 20-year time horizons (0.0108, 0.0638, and 0.1481 QALY). With similar outcomes and less cost, the EVT only strategy was cost-effective compared with BT. Analyses with longer time horizon show lower probabilities of EVT only strategy being cost-effective. At a fixed willingness to pay threshold of 100,000 per QALY, the probabilities of EVT only strategy being cost-effective was 22.8% over the 20-year time horizon.Conclusions:Our cost-effectiveness model suggested that bridging with thrombolytics may not be cost-effective for patients with acute ischemic stroke secondary to large vessel occlusion.

peripheral vascular disease,clinical neurology