BACKGROUND: A hub-and-spoke telestroke network is an effective way to extend quality emergency stroke care to remote hospitals and improve patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost utility of a telestroke network in the management of acute ischemic stroke from the societal perspective. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A lifetime Markov model was developed to compare the incremental costs and effectiveness of a telestroke network. One-year transition probabilities between the 3 health states based on the modified Rankin scale--minimal-to-no disability, moderate-to-severe disability, and death--were derived from literature. Costs included telemedicine setup and maintenance, initial and recurrent stroke treatment, rehabilitation, long-term care, and caregiver costs. Effectiveness was defined as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Model inputs were obtained from the literature supplemented by data from Georgia Health Sciences University and Mayo Clinic. The base case network included 1 hub and 7 spokes, and assumed no survival benefits from acute treatment in a network. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Compared with no network, patients treated in a telestroke network incurred $1436 lower costs and gained 0.02 QALYs over a lifetime. Incremental costs decreased from $444 for the first year to -$1436 over a lifetime; incremental QALYs increased from 0.002 for the first year to 0.02 over a lifetime. Overall, results were robust in the 1-way sensitivity analyses. A telestroke network became less cost-effective with increasing spoke-to-hub transfer rates. CONCLUSIONS: A telestroke network is cost savingand more effective compared with no network from the societal perspective in most modeled scenarios.
BACKGROUND: A hub-and-spoke telestroke network is an effective way to extend quality emergency stroke care to remote hospitals and improve patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost utility of a telestroke network in the management of acute ischemic stroke from the societal perspective. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A lifetime Markov model was developed to compare the incremental costs and effectiveness of a telestroke network. One-year transition probabilities between the 3 health states based on the modified Rankin scale--minimal-to-no disability, moderate-to-severe disability, and death--were derived from literature. Costs included telemedicine setup and maintenance, initial and recurrent stroke treatment, rehabilitation, long-term care, and caregiver costs. Effectiveness was defined as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Model inputs were obtained from the literature supplemented by data from Georgia Health Sciences University and Mayo Clinic. The base case network included 1 hub and 7 spokes, and assumed no survival benefits from acute treatment in a network. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Compared with no network, patients treated in a telestroke network incurred $1436 lower costs and gained 0.02 QALYs over a lifetime. Incremental costs decreased from $444 for the first year to -$1436 over a lifetime; incremental QALYs increased from 0.002 for the first year to 0.02 over a lifetime. Overall, results were robust in the 1-way sensitivity analyses. A telestroke network became less cost-effective with increasing spoke-to-hub transfer rates. CONCLUSIONS: A telestroke network is cost savingand more effective compared with no network from the societal perspective in most modeled scenarios.
Authors: Benjamin P George; Sara J Doyle; George P Albert; Ania Busza; Robert G Holloway; Kevin N Sheth; Adam G Kelly Journal: Neurology Date: 2018-04-04 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Lucas M Donovan; Aditi Shah; Ching Li Chai-Coetzer; Ferran Barbé; Najib T Ayas; Vishesh K Kapur Journal: Chest Date: 2019-10-19 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Ana Barragán-Prieto; Soledad Pérez-Sánchez; Francisco Moniche; Roberto Valverde Moyano; Fernando Delgado; Patricia Martínez-Sánchez; Miguel Moya; Juan M Oropesa; Adolfo Mínguez-Castellanos; Inmaculada Villegas; María José Álvarez Soria; Jose Antonio Tamayo Toledo; Carlos de la Cruz Cosme; Rafael Canto Neguillo; Juan Manuel Herrerías Esteban; Daniel José Montero Cobos; Jose Antonio Moreno Muñoz; Alejandro González; Joan Montaner Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2022-05-25
Authors: René Handschu; Mateusz Scibor; Martin Nückel; Dirk Asshoff; Barbara Willaczek; Frank Erbguth; Stefan Schwab; Frank Daumann Journal: J Neurol Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Jaime M Hatcher-Martin; Neil A Busis; Bruce H Cohen; Rebecca A Wolf; Elaine C Jones; Eric R Anderson; Joseph V Fritz; Steven J Shook; Riley M Bove Journal: Neurology Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Steve Martino; Christina Lazar; John Sellinger; Kathryn Gilstad-Hayden; Brenda Fenton; Paul G Barnett; Brad R Brummett; Diana M Higgins; Paul Holtzheimer; Kristin Mattocks; Tu Ngo; Thomas E Reznik; Alicia M Semiatin; Todd Stapley; Marc I Rosen Journal: Pain Med Date: 2020-12-12 Impact factor: 3.750