Secondary transfer of emergency stroke patients eligible for mechanical thrombectomy by air in rural England: economic evaluation and considerations.
emergency ambulance systems
emergency care systems
helicopter retrieval
management
remote and rural medicine
stroke
thromboembolic diseasex
Journal
Emergency medicine journal : EMJ
ISSN: 1472-0213
Titre abrégé: Emerg Med J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100963089
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
21
08
2019
revised:
16
08
2020
accepted:
27
08
2020
pubmed:
12
11
2020
medline:
29
6
2021
entrez:
11
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is a time-sensitive emergency procedure for patients who had ischaemic stroke leading to improved health outcomes. Health systems need to ensure that MT is delivered to as many patients as quickly as possible. Using decision modelling, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of secondary transfer by helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) compared with ground emergency medical services (GEMS) of rural patients eligible for MT in England. The model consisted of (1) a short-run decision tree with two branches, representing secondary transfer transportation strategies and (2) a long-run Markov model for a theoretical population of rural patients with a confirmed ischaemic stroke. Strategies were compared by lifetime costs: quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost per QALY gained and net monetary benefit. Sensitivity and scenario analyses explored uncertainty around parameter values. We used the base case of early-presenting (<6 hours to arterial puncture) patient aged 75 years who had stroke to compare HEMS and GEMS. This produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £28 027 when a 60 min reduction in travel time was assumed. Scenario analyses showed the importance of the reduction in travel time and futile transfers in lowering ICERs. For late presenting (>6 hours to arterial puncture), ground transportation is the dominant strategy. Our model indicates that using HEMS to transfer patients who had stroke eligible for MT from remote hospitals in England may be cost-effective when: travel time is reduced by at least 60 min compared with GEMS, and a £30 000/QALY threshold is used for decision-making. However, several other logistic considerations may impact on the use of air transportation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is a time-sensitive emergency procedure for patients who had ischaemic stroke leading to improved health outcomes. Health systems need to ensure that MT is delivered to as many patients as quickly as possible. Using decision modelling, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of secondary transfer by helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) compared with ground emergency medical services (GEMS) of rural patients eligible for MT in England.
METHODS
METHODS
The model consisted of (1) a short-run decision tree with two branches, representing secondary transfer transportation strategies and (2) a long-run Markov model for a theoretical population of rural patients with a confirmed ischaemic stroke. Strategies were compared by lifetime costs: quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost per QALY gained and net monetary benefit. Sensitivity and scenario analyses explored uncertainty around parameter values.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We used the base case of early-presenting (<6 hours to arterial puncture) patient aged 75 years who had stroke to compare HEMS and GEMS. This produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £28 027 when a 60 min reduction in travel time was assumed. Scenario analyses showed the importance of the reduction in travel time and futile transfers in lowering ICERs. For late presenting (>6 hours to arterial puncture), ground transportation is the dominant strategy.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our model indicates that using HEMS to transfer patients who had stroke eligible for MT from remote hospitals in England may be cost-effective when: travel time is reduced by at least 60 min compared with GEMS, and a £30 000/QALY threshold is used for decision-making. However, several other logistic considerations may impact on the use of air transportation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33172878
pii: emermed-2019-209039
doi: 10.1136/emermed-2019-209039
pmc: PMC7788185
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
33-39Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : RP-PG-1211-20012
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: This paper summarises independent research funded by the NIHR under its Programme Grant for Applied Research Programme (RP-PG-1211-20012). PW is the co-principal investigator for two randomised thrombectomy trials (PISTE and STABILISE) in acute stroke. Start-up phase of PISTE was mainly funded by the Stroke Association but was also part-funded by unrestricted educational grants from Covidien (now Medtronic) and Codman who manufacture stroke thrombectomy devices. STABILISE is part-funded by Microvention grant to Newcastle University. PW has undertaken consultancy work for Stryker, Codman and Microvention who manufacture stroke thrombectomy devices. GAF’s previous institution has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim (manufacturer of alteplase), and honoraria from Lundbeck for stroke-related activities. GAF has also received personal remuneration for educational and advisory work from Boehringer Ingelheim and Lundbeck.
Références
Int J Stroke. 2015 Dec;10(8):1168-78
pubmed: 26310289
Circulation. 2018 Apr 24;137(17):1767-1769
pubmed: 29348262
Stroke. 2017 Jul;48(7):2007-2012
pubmed: 28626052
Technol Health Care. 2012;20(1):49-56
pubmed: 22297713
Stroke. 2015 Sep;46(9):2591-8
pubmed: 26251241
Eur Stroke J. 2017 Dec;2(4):319-326
pubmed: 29900409
Stroke. 2012 Mar;43(3):878-80
pubmed: 22156702
Health Technol Assess. 2002;6(26):1-112
pubmed: 12433319
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 4;378(1):11-21
pubmed: 29129157
Emerg Med J. 2014 Apr;31(4):268-72
pubmed: 23389831
J Neurointerv Surg. 2018 Oct;10(10):932-936
pubmed: 29436505
MDM Policy Pract. 2018 May 08;3(1):2381468318774804
pubmed: 30288446
Circulation. 2017 Dec 12;136(24):2311-2321
pubmed: 28943516
JAMA. 2016 Sep 27;316(12):1279-88
pubmed: 27673305
Eur Stroke J. 2016 Sep;1(3):171-179
pubmed: 31008278
Eur Stroke J. 2019 Mar;4(1):39-49
pubmed: 31165093
Lancet. 2016 Apr 23;387(10029):1723-31
pubmed: 26898852
Stroke. 2018 Jun;49(6):1419-1425
pubmed: 29712881