Cost-effectiveness analysis of endovascular treatment with or without intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Intravenous (IV) recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (r-tPA) may not provide additional benefit in terms of functional outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) who undergo endovascular treatment (EVT). In this context, the cost-effectiveness of EVT alone compared with its application following IV r-tPA has not been evaluated. METHODS The authors determined the average rates of death or disability in each of the two treatment groups from four randomized clinical trials that enrolled patients with AIS within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and randomly assigned patients to EVT alone and IV r-tPA and EVT. By using three sources derived from previous studies, the authors determined the cost of IV r-tPA, cost of staff time for administration, cost of the EVT, cost of hospital stay, costs of supported discharge and community care, and cost of posthospitalization care and disability. They then assessed the cost-effectiveness of EVT alone using a decision tree for the 1st year after AIS and a Markov model with a 10-year horizon, including probabilistic assessment by Monte Carlo simulations. RESULTS The 1-year cost was higher with IV r-tPA and EVT compared with EVT alone (incremental cost ranging between $3554 and $13,788 per patient). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were −$1589, −$78,327, and −$15,471 per quality-adjusted life-year gained for cost sources 1, 2, and 3, respectively, for EVT alone compared with IV r-tPA and EVT at 10 years. The ceiling ICER (willingness to pay) for a probability of 100% that EVT alone was more cost-effective ranged between $25,000 and $100,000 in the three models. CONCLUSIONS EVT alone appears to be more cost-effective compared with EVT and IV r-tPA for the treatment of AIS patients presenting within 4.5 hours of symptom onset.