Abstract
Abstract
Background and Purpose
The average annual cost of stroke treatment is over $40 billion in USA. With recent advancement of tools used in thrombectomies, the question of whether the use of multiple costly devices in an emergent thrombectomy will lead to a better or worse outcome when compared to simpler devices remains unanswered.
Materials and Methods
We retrospectively analyzed 89 patients who underwent emergent stroke interventions at a community hospital from January 2018 to February 2021. Patients were grouped into Aspiration only (ASP) n = 15, 1 Stent-retriever (SR) + 1ASP n = 59, and ≥ 1SR + ≥ 1ASP n = 15, based on main devices/device combination used that affected cost. Demographic and perioperative variables were assessed by multivariate analysis to determine possible predictors and outcomes associated with multiple device use (≥ 1SR + ≥ 1ASP).
Results
The multiple device/SR group had the highest mean total cost of devices per procedure (~$21,104) when compared to No SR/ASP only (~$4,477) and 1SR + 1ASP (~$12,295) groups. We identified LSW to puncture time (OR = 1.001; 95% CI 1.000 to 1.003, p = 0.05), and NIHSS score (OR = 1.085; 95% CI 1.085 to 1.173, p = 0.04) as significant predictors of multiple device use. Regarding outcomes, the use of multiple SR was significantly associated with poor/incomplete recanalization rates (OR = 0.191, 95% CI 0.049 to 0.741, p = 0.017) and functional dependence mRS 4–6 (OR=-1.02; 95% CI -2.04 to -0.01, p = 0.048).
Conclusions
After an unsuccessful initial attempt with a single device to achieve complete revascularization in EVTs, the additional use of stent-retrievers leads to unimproved recanalization rates at an increased cost with no additional clinical benefit to the patients. This was especially seen in patients who presented in the delayed time window (> 360 min) with high NIHSS scores.
Publisher
Research Square Platform LLC
Reference24 articles.
1. Benjamin EJ, Virani SS, Callaway CW, Chamberlain AM, Chang AR, Cheng S, et al.; American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2018 update: a report from the American Heart Association.Circulation. 2018; 137:e67–e492. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000558
2. Benjamin EJ, Virani SS, Callaway CW, Chamberlain AM, Chang AR, Cheng S, et al.; American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2018 update: a report from the American Heart Association.Circulation. 2018; 137:e67–e492. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000558
3. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2021 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association;Virani SS;Circulation,2021
4. Adeoye O, Nyström KV, Yavagal DR, et al. Recommendations for the Establishment of Stroke Systems of Care: A 2019 Update [published correction appears in Stroke. 2020;51(4):e70]. Stroke. 2019;50(7):e187-e210. doi:10.1161/STR.0000000000000173
5. Powers WJ, Rabinstein AA, Ackerson T, et al. Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: 2019 Update to the 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association [published correction appears in Stroke. 2019;50(12):e440-e441]. Stroke. 2019;50(12):e344-e418. doi:10.1161/STR.0000000000000211