Siemens Healthineers USA, Malvern, Pennsylvania, USA
Imaging Clinical Effectiveness and Outcomes Research, Center for Health Innovations and Outcomes Research, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, USA.
J Neurointerv Surg. 2023 Nov;15(e2):e166-e171. doi: 10.1136/jnis-2022-019460. Epub 2022 Sep 29.
Evidence has shown that endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) treatment improves clinical outcomes. Yet, its benefit remains uncertain in patients with large established infarcts as defined by ASPECTS (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score) <6. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of EVT, compared with standard care (SC), in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients with ASPECTS 3-5.
An economic evaluation study was performed combining a decision tree and Markov model to estimate lifetime costs (2021 US$) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of AIS patients with ASPECTS 3-5. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), net monetary benefits (NMBs), and deterministic one-way and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed to evaluate the robustness of our model.
Compared with SC, the cost-effectiveness analyses revealed that EVT yields higher lifetime benefits (2.20 QALYs vs 1.41 QALYs) with higher lifetime healthcare cost per patient ($285 861 vs $272 954). The difference in health benefits between EVT and SC was 0.79 QALYs, equivalent to 288 additional days of healthy life per patient. Even though EVT is more costly than SC alone, it is still cost-effective given better outcomes with ICER of $16 239/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that EVT was the most cost-effective strategy in 98.8% (9882 of 10 000) of iterations at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY.
The results of this study suggest that EVT is cost-effective in AIS patients with a large ischemic core (ASPECTS 3-5), compared with SC alone over the patient's lifetime.
有证据表明,血管内血栓切除术(EVT)治疗可改善临床结果。然而,对于 ASPECTS(阿尔伯塔卒中项目早期 CT 评分)<6 的大面积已确立梗死患者,其获益仍不确定。本研究评估了 EVT 与标准治疗(SC)相比,在 ASPECTS 为 3-5 的急性缺血性卒中(AIS)患者中的成本效益。
本研究结合决策树和马尔可夫模型进行了一项经济评估研究,以估计 ASPECTS 为 3-5 的 AIS 患者的终生成本(2021 年美元)和质量调整生命年(QALY)。进行了增量成本效益比(ICER)、净货币效益(NMB)以及确定性单向和双向敏感性分析。还进行了概率敏感性分析,以评估模型的稳健性。
与 SC 相比,成本效益分析显示 EVT 可带来更高的终生效益(2.20 QALY 比 1.41 QALY),每位患者的终生医疗保健成本更高($285861 比 $272954)。EVT 和 SC 之间的健康效益差异为 0.79 QALY,相当于每位患者多 288 天的健康生活。尽管 EVT 比单独的 SC 更昂贵,但由于更好的结果,其增量成本效益比为 16239 美元/QALY,仍具有成本效益。概率敏感性分析表明,在 10000 次迭代中的 98.8%(9882 次),EVT 是在 100000 美元/QALY 的意愿支付阈值下最具成本效益的策略。
本研究结果表明,与单独的 SC 相比,EVT 在 AIS 患者中具有成本效益,这些患者有较大的缺血核心(ASPECTS 为 3-5),在患者的一生中都是如此。