BACKGROUND: In Ontario, current treatment for eligible patients who have an acute ischemic stroke is intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). However, there are some limitations and contraindications to IVT, and outcomes may not be favourable for patients with stroke caused by a proximal intracranial occlusion. An alternative is mechanical thrombectomy with newer devices, and a number of recent studies have suggested that this treatment is more effective for improving functional independence and clinical outcomes. The objective of this health technology assessment was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new-generation mechanical thrombectomy devices (with or without IVT) compared to IVT alone (if eligible) in patients with acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature, limited to randomized controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy using stent retrievers and thromboaspiration devices for patients with acute ischemic stroke. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We developed a Markov decision-analytic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy (with or without IVT) versus IVT alone (if eligible), calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using a 5-year time horizon, and conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the robustness of the estimates. RESULTS: There was a substantial, statistically significant difference in rate of functional independence (GRADE: high quality) between those who received mechanical thrombectomy (with or without IVT) and IVT alone (odds ratio [OR] 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.88-3.04). We did not observe a difference in mortality (GRADE: moderate quality) (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.60-1.07) or symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (GRADE: moderate quality) (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.66-1.87). In the base-case cost-utility analysis, which had a 5 year time horizon, the costs and effectiveness for mechanical thrombectomy were $126,939 and 1.484 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (2.969 life-years). The costs and effectiveness for IVT alone were $124,419 and 1.273 QALYs (2.861 life-years), respectively. Mechanical thrombectomy was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $11,990 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of mechanical thrombectomy being cost-effective was 57.5%, 89.7%, and 99.6%, at thresholds of $20,000, $50,000, and $100,000 per QALY gained, respectively. We estimated that adopting mechanical thrombectomy would lead to a cost increase of approximately $1 to 2 million. CONCLUSIONS: High quality evidence showed that mechanical thrombectomy significantly improved functional independence and appeared to be cost-effective compared to IVT alone for patients with acute ischemic stroke.
BACKGROUND: In Ontario, current treatment for eligible patients who have an acute ischemic stroke is intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). However, there are some limitations and contraindications to IVT, and outcomes may not be favourable for patients with stroke caused by a proximal intracranial occlusion. An alternative is mechanical thrombectomy with newer devices, and a number of recent studies have suggested that this treatment is more effective for improving functional independence and clinical outcomes. The objective of this health technology assessment was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new-generation mechanical thrombectomy devices (with or without IVT) compared to IVT alone (if eligible) in patients with acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature, limited to randomized controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy using stent retrievers and thromboaspiration devices for patients with acute ischemic stroke. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We developed a Markov decision-analytic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy (with or without IVT) versus IVT alone (if eligible), calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using a 5-year time horizon, and conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the robustness of the estimates. RESULTS: There was a substantial, statistically significant difference in rate of functional independence (GRADE: high quality) between those who received mechanical thrombectomy (with or without IVT) and IVT alone (odds ratio [OR] 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.88-3.04). We did not observe a difference in mortality (GRADE: moderate quality) (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.60-1.07) or symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (GRADE: moderate quality) (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.66-1.87). In the base-case cost-utility analysis, which had a 5 year time horizon, the costs and effectiveness for mechanical thrombectomy were $126,939 and 1.484 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (2.969 life-years). The costs and effectiveness for IVT alone were $124,419 and 1.273 QALYs (2.861 life-years), respectively. Mechanical thrombectomy was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $11,990 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of mechanical thrombectomy being cost-effective was 57.5%, 89.7%, and 99.6%, at thresholds of $20,000, $50,000, and $100,000 per QALY gained, respectively. We estimated that adopting mechanical thrombectomy would lead to a cost increase of approximately $1 to 2 million. CONCLUSIONS: High quality evidence showed that mechanical thrombectomy significantly improved functional independence and appeared to be cost-effective compared to IVT alone for patients with acute ischemic stroke.
Authors: J C Bouvy; P S S Fransen; S A Baeten; M A Koopmanschap; L W Niessen; D W J Dippel Journal: Acta Neurol Scand Date: 2012-12-31 Impact factor: 3.209
Authors: Bruce C V Campbell; Peter J Mitchell; Timothy J Kleinig; Helen M Dewey; Leonid Churilov; Nawaf Yassi; Bernard Yan; Richard J Dowling; Mark W Parsons; Thomas J Oxley; Teddy Y Wu; Mark Brooks; Marion A Simpson; Ferdinand Miteff; Christopher R Levi; Martin Krause; Timothy J Harrington; Kenneth C Faulder; Brendan S Steinfort; Miriam Priglinger; Timothy Ang; Rebecca Scroop; P Alan Barber; Ben McGuinness; Tissa Wijeratne; Thanh G Phan; Winston Chong; Ronil V Chandra; Christopher F Bladin; Monica Badve; Henry Rice; Laetitia de Villiers; Henry Ma; Patricia M Desmond; Geoffrey A Donnan; Stephen M Davis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Olvert A Berkhemer; Puck S S Fransen; Debbie Beumer; Lucie A van den Berg; Hester F Lingsma; Albert J Yoo; Wouter J Schonewille; Jan Albert Vos; Paul J Nederkoorn; Marieke J H Wermer; Marianne A A van Walderveen; Julie Staals; Jeannette Hofmeijer; Jacques A van Oostayen; Geert J Lycklama à Nijeholt; Jelis Boiten; Patrick A Brouwer; Bart J Emmer; Sebastiaan F de Bruijn; Lukas C van Dijk; L Jaap Kappelle; Rob H Lo; Ewoud J van Dijk; Joost de Vries; Paul L M de Kort; Willem Jan J van Rooij; Jan S P van den Berg; Boudewijn A A M van Hasselt; Leo A M Aerden; René J Dallinga; Marieke C Visser; Joseph C J Bot; Patrick C Vroomen; Omid Eshghi; Tobien H C M L Schreuder; Roel J J Heijboer; Koos Keizer; Alexander V Tielbeek; Heleen M den Hertog; Dick G Gerrits; Renske M van den Berg-Vos; Giorgos B Karas; Ewout W Steyerberg; H Zwenneke Flach; Henk A Marquering; Marieke E S Sprengers; Sjoerd F M Jenniskens; Ludo F M Beenen; René van den Berg; Peter J Koudstaal; Wim H van Zwam; Yvo B W E M Roos; Aad van der Lugt; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Charles B L M Majoie; Diederik W J Dippel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kit N Simpson; Annie N Simpson; Patrick D Mauldin; Michael D Hill; Sharon D Yeatts; Judith A Spilker; Lydia D Foster; Pooja Khatri; Renee Martin; Edward C Jauch; Dawn Kleindorfer; Yuko Y Palesch; Joseph P Broderick Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-05-13 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Ramon Luengo-Fernandez; Alastair M Gray; Linda Bull; Sarah Welch; Fiona Cuthbertson; Peter M Rothwell Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Ramon Luengo-Fernandez; Nicola L M Paul; Alastair M Gray; Sarah T Pendlebury; Linda M Bull; Sarah J V Welch; Fiona C Cuthbertson; Peter M Rothwell Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-08-06 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Jonathan Emberson; Kennedy R Lees; Patrick Lyden; Lisa Blackwell; Gregory Albers; Erich Bluhmki; Thomas Brott; Geoff Cohen; Stephen Davis; Geoffrey Donnan; James Grotta; George Howard; Markku Kaste; Masatoshi Koga; Ruediger von Kummer; Maarten Lansberg; Richard I Lindley; Gordon Murray; Jean Marc Olivot; Mark Parsons; Barbara Tilley; Danilo Toni; Kazunori Toyoda; Nils Wahlgren; Joanna Wardlaw; William Whiteley; Gregory J del Zoppo; Colin Baigent; Peter Sandercock; Werner Hacke Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Xuanqian Xie; Anna Lambrinos; Brian Chan; Irfan A Dhalla; Timo Krings; Leanne K Casaubon; Cheemun Lum; Nancy Sikich; Aditya Bharatha; Vitor Mendes Pereira; Grant Stotts; Gustavo Saposnik; Christina O'Callaghan; Linda Kelloway; Michael D Hill Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2016-06-16
Authors: Fernando de Andrés-Nogales; María Álvarez; María Ángeles de Miquel; Tomás Segura; Alberto Gil; Pere Cardona; Miguel Ángel Casado; Raul G Nogueira; Antoni Dávalos Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2017-08-01
Authors: Jonathan T Caranfa; Elaine Nguyen; Rafay Ali; Iregi Francis; Albert Zichichi; Elliott Bosco; Craig I Coleman; William L Baker; Christine G Kohn Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-03-07 Impact factor: 3.240