1 Department of Clinical Sciences, Malmö, Health Economics, Lund University, Sweden.
2 Department of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine, Skane University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Int J Stroke. 2017 Oct;12(8):802-814. doi: 10.1177/1747493017701154. Epub 2017 Apr 4.
Background Randomised controlled trials have demonstrated substantial clinical benefit for thrombectomy in patients with acute ischaemic stroke and proximal anterior circulation arterial occlusion. Aim We investigated the long-term cost-effectiveness of thrombectomy after thrombolysis versus thrombolysis alone using real-world outcome data on need for health care, home help and nursing home care. Methods We used real-life resource use and survival data from the Swedish Stroke Register and pooled outcomes from five randomised controlled trials published in 2015 in a newly constructed Markov cost-effectiveness model with a societal perspective. Data were stratified by age (18-64; 65-74; 75-84 years) and modified Rankin scale at three months for patients with an index ischaemic stroke in 2014 fulfilling inclusion criteria NIHSS ≥ 8 before treatment and treated with thrombolysis ( n = 710). Univariate sensitivity analyses explored robustness of results. A life-time perspective and 3% discount rate were applied. Results Thrombectomy increases the health care cost per patient (+GBP 9000) mainly because of intervention costs, but the reduced burden on the social services (home help services -GBP 13,000; nursing home care -GBP 26,000) implies overall cost savings. The average patient gain was 1.0 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) with higher gains for younger age groups. Thrombectomy was a dominant strategy in the base case and all sensitivity analyses where social services were considered. Conclusion Thrombectomy has a small effect on hospital costs except for the direct intervention cost. However, thrombectomy is highly likely to lead to substantial cost savings in the social service sector, up to four times the increase in health-care costs.
随机对照试验已经证明了急性缺血性卒中伴近端前循环动脉闭塞患者取栓治疗的显著临床获益。目的:我们使用真实世界的医疗保健需求、家庭护理和疗养院护理数据,调查溶栓后取栓与单纯溶栓相比的长期成本效益。方法:我们使用瑞典卒中登记处的真实资源使用和生存数据,并结合 2015 年发表的五项随机对照试验的汇总结果,构建了一个新的、基于社会视角的马尔可夫成本效益模型。根据年龄(18-64 岁、65-74 岁、75-84 岁)和患者在索引性缺血性卒中发生后三个月的改良 Rankin 量表进行分层,符合 NIHSS≥8 且在治疗前接受溶栓治疗的患者(n=710)。进行单变量敏感性分析以检验结果的稳健性。采用终生视角和 3%贴现率。结果:取栓治疗增加了每位患者的医疗保健成本(+9000 英镑),主要是因为干预成本增加,但社会服务(家庭护理服务-13000 英镑;疗养院护理-26000 英镑)的负担减轻意味着总体成本节约。平均每位患者获得 1.0 个质量调整生命年(QALY),年轻患者组的获益更高。取栓治疗在基础案例和所有考虑社会服务的敏感性分析中均为优势策略。结论:取栓治疗对医院成本的影响较小,除了直接干预成本外。然而,取栓治疗极有可能在社会服务领域节省大量成本,其节省的成本最高可达医疗保健成本增加的四倍。