|| Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
Background and purpose: The benefit of mechanical thrombectomy added to intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke has been largely demonstrated. However, evidence on economic incentive of this strategy is still limited, especially in the context of randomized trial. The purpose of this study is to analyze whether the combination of mechanical thrombectomy with intravenous thrombolysis is more cost-effective than implementing intravenous thrombolysis alone.Patients and methods: Individual-level cost and outcome data were collected in the THRACE randomized clinical trial, including patients with acute ischaemic stroke and proximal cerebral artery occlusion. Patients were assigned to either intravenous thrombolysis (IVT; n = 208) or intravenous thrombolysis plus intra-arterial thrombectomy (IVMT; n=204). The primary outcomes were both modified Rankin scale of functional independence at 90 days (score 0-2) and the EuroQol-5D score of quality of life. This study considered the perspective of the National Health Security System in France.Results: Bridging therapy increased by 10.9% the rate of functional independence compared to IVT (53% vs 42,1%) at an increased cost of 1909 є, with no significant difference in mortality (12% vs 13%) or symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (2% vs 2%). Cost per one averted case of disability was consequently estimated at 17,480 є. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained was 13,423 є. Sensitivity analysis showed that combined approach had 84.1% probability of being cost-effective regarding cases of averted disability and 92.2% probability regarding quality-adjusted life year outcome. The national implementation of this new strategy would result in additional cost of 12.9 million є and avoid about 737 cases of death or disability.Conclusions: Based on randomized trial, this study demonstrates that intravenous thrombolysis plus mechanical intra-arterial thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic stroke is more cost-effective than intravenous thrombolysis alone.