Cost-effectiveness of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Stroke with Large Infarct: A United States Perspective

Abstract

Background The health economic benefit of endovascular treatment (EVT) in addition to best medical management for acute ischemic stroke with large ischemic core is uncertain. Purpose To assess the cost-effectiveness of EVT plus best medical management versus best medical management alone in treating acute ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion and a baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) 3-5. Materials and Methods This is a secondary analysis of the randomized RESCUE-Japan LIMIT (Recovery by Endovascular Salvage for Cerebral Ultra-acute Embolism-Japan Large Ischemic Core Trial), with enrollment November 2018 to September 2021, in which the primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days. Participants with a baseline ASPECTS 3-5 (on the basis of noncontrast CT and diffusion-weighted imaging) were randomized 1:1 to receive EVT plus best medical management (n = 100) or best medical management alone (n = 102). The primary outcome of the current study was cost-effectiveness, determined according to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A decision model consisting of a short-term component (cycle length of 3 months) and a long-term Markov state transition component (cycle length of 1 year) was used to estimate expected lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from health care and societal perspectives in the United States. Upper and lower willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were set at $100 000 and $50 000 per QALY, respectively. A deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis to determine the impact of participant age and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty were conducted. Results A total of 202 participants were included in the study (mean age, 76 years ± 10 [SD]; 112 male). EVT plus best medical management resulted in ICERs of $15 743 (health care perspective) and $19 492 (societal perspective). At the lower and upper WTP thresholds, EVT was cost-effective up to 85 and 90 years (health care perspective) and 84 and 89 years (societal perspective) of age, respectively. When analyzing participants with the largest infarcts (ASPECTS 3) separately, EVT was not cost-effective (ICER, $337 072 [health care perspective] and $383 628 [societal perspective]). Conclusion EVT was cost-effective for participants with an ASPECTS 4-5, but not for those with an ASPECTS 3. ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT03702413 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Widjaja in this issue.