Yang, Xinguang

Aim: The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost–effectiveness of the EmboTrap ® Revascularization Device compared with the Solitaire™ Revascularization Device and Trevo ® Retriever for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: According to MASTRO I, a recent living systematic literature review and meta-analysis, mechanical thrombectomy (MT) with EmboTrap in the treatment of AIS resulted in better functional outcomes compared with the use of Solitaire or Trevo. Based on the proportion of patients that achieved 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 0–2, 3–5 and 6 reported in MASTRO I, a combined 90-day short-term decision tree and Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was used to compare the cost–effectiveness of the three devices. The primary outcome was the incremental cost–effectiveness ratio (ICER), representing the incremental cost (in 2022 Chinese Yuan [CNY]) per incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The ICERs were compared against willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of 1, 1.5 and 3-times the 2022 national gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China. Results: Treatment with EmboTrap resulted in total QALYs of 3.28 and total costs of 110,058 CNY per patient. Treatment with Trevo resulted in total QALYs of 3.05 and total costs of 116,941 CNY per patient. Treatment with Solitaire resulted in total QALYs of 2.81 and total costs of 99,090 CNY per patient. Trevo was dominated by EmboTrap as it was a more costly and less effective intervention. As such, Trevo was not cost-effective at any WTP threshold. Compared with Solitaire, EmboTrap was more effective and more costly, with an ICER of 23,615 CNY per QALY. This result suggests that EmboTrap is cost-effective when compared with Solitaire since the ICER was lower than all WTP thresholds assessed. Conclusion: EmboTrap dominated Trevo and is cost-effective for the treatment of patients with AIS compared with Solitaire when assessed from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system and based on the device-level meta-analysis MASTRO I. Selecting a stent retriever (SR) that optimizes 90-day mRS score is an important consideration from both a clinical and healthcare payer perspective in China as it is associated with reduced long-term costs and increased quality of life.

Aim: Stent-retriever (SR) thrombectomy has demonstrated superior outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke compared with medical management alone, but differences among SRs remain unexplored. We conducted a Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis to compare outcomes between three SRs: EmboTrap ® , Solitaire™, and Trevo ® . Methods: We conducted a PRISMA-compliant Systematic Review among English-language studies published after 2014 in PubMed/MEDLINE that reported SRs in ≥25 patients. Functional and safety outcomes included 90-day modified Rankin scale (mRS 0-2), mortality, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), and embolization to new territory (ENT). Recanalization outcomes included modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (mTICI) and first-pass recanalization (FPR). We used a random effects Meta-Analysis to compare outcomes; subgroup and outlier-influencer analysis were performed to explore heterogeneity. Results: Fifty-one articles comprising 9,804 patients were included. EmboTrap had statistically significantly higher rates of mRS 0-2 (57.4%) compared with Trevo (50.0%, p = 0.013) and Solitaire (45.3%, p < 0.001). Compared with Solitaire (20.4%), EmboTrap (11.2%, p < 0.001) and Trevo (14.5%, p = 0.018) had statistically significantly lower mortality. Compared with Solitaire (7.7%), EmboTrap (3.9%, p = 0.028) and Trevo (4.6%, p = 0.049) had statistically significantly lower rates of sICH. There were no significant differences in ENT rates across all three devices (6.0% for EmboTrap, 5.3% for Trevo, and 7.7% for Solitaire, p = 0.518). EmboTrap had numerically higher rates of recanalization; however, no statistically significant differences were found. Conclusion: The results of our Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis suggest that EmboTrap may be associated with significantly improved functional outcomes compared with Solitaire and Trevo. EmboTrap and Trevo may be associated with significantly lower rates of sICH and mortality compared with Solitaire. No significant differences in recanalization and ENT rates were found. These conclusions are tempered by limitations of the analysis including variations in thrombectomy techniques in the field, highlighting the need for multi-arm RCT studies comparing different SR devices to confirm our findings.