How a thrombectomy service can reduce hospital deficit: a cost-effectiveness study.
Acute stroke
Cost-effectiveness
Health economics
Length of stay
Matched-pair analysis
Patient-level costing
Thrombectomy
Journal
Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E
ISSN: 1478-7547
Titre abrégé: Cost Eff Resour Alloc
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170476
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Nov 2022
04 Nov 2022
Historique:
received:
20
02
2022
accepted:
17
10
2022
entrez:
5
11
2022
pubmed:
6
11
2022
medline:
6
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is level 1 evidence for cerebral thrombectomy with thrombolysis in acute large vessel occlusion. Many hospitals are now contemplating setting up this life-saving service. For the hospital, however, the first treatment is associated with an initial high cost to cover the procedure. Whilst the health economic benefit of treating stroke is documented, this is the only study to date performing matched-pair, patient-level costing to determine treatment cost within the first hospital episode and up to 90 days post-event. We conducted a retrospective coarsened exact matched-pair analysis of 50 acute stroke patients eligible for thrombectomy. Thrombectomy resulted in significantly more good outcomes (mRS 0-2) compared to matched controls (56% vs 8%, p = 0.001). More patients in the thrombectomy group could be discharged home (60% vs 28%), fewer were discharged to nursing homes (4% vs 16%), residential homes (0% vs 12%) or rehabilitation centres (8% vs 20%). Thrombectomy patients had fewer serious adverse events (n = 30 vs 86) and were, on average, discharged 36 days earlier. They required significantly fewer physiotherapy sessions (18.72 vs 46.49, p = 0.0009) resulting in a median reduction in total rehabilitation cost of £4982 (p = 0.0002) per patient. The total cost of additional investigations was £227 lower (p = 0.0369). Overall, the median cost without thrombectomy was £39,664 per case vs £22,444, resulting in median savings of £17,221 (p = 0.0489). Mechanical thrombectomy improved patient outcome, reduced length of hospitalisation and, even without procedural reimbursement, significantly reduced cost to the thrombectomy providing hospital.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is level 1 evidence for cerebral thrombectomy with thrombolysis in acute large vessel occlusion. Many hospitals are now contemplating setting up this life-saving service. For the hospital, however, the first treatment is associated with an initial high cost to cover the procedure. Whilst the health economic benefit of treating stroke is documented, this is the only study to date performing matched-pair, patient-level costing to determine treatment cost within the first hospital episode and up to 90 days post-event.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective coarsened exact matched-pair analysis of 50 acute stroke patients eligible for thrombectomy.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Thrombectomy resulted in significantly more good outcomes (mRS 0-2) compared to matched controls (56% vs 8%, p = 0.001). More patients in the thrombectomy group could be discharged home (60% vs 28%), fewer were discharged to nursing homes (4% vs 16%), residential homes (0% vs 12%) or rehabilitation centres (8% vs 20%). Thrombectomy patients had fewer serious adverse events (n = 30 vs 86) and were, on average, discharged 36 days earlier. They required significantly fewer physiotherapy sessions (18.72 vs 46.49, p = 0.0009) resulting in a median reduction in total rehabilitation cost of £4982 (p = 0.0002) per patient. The total cost of additional investigations was £227 lower (p = 0.0369). Overall, the median cost without thrombectomy was £39,664 per case vs £22,444, resulting in median savings of £17,221 (p = 0.0489).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Mechanical thrombectomy improved patient outcome, reduced length of hospitalisation and, even without procedural reimbursement, significantly reduced cost to the thrombectomy providing hospital.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36333706
doi: 10.1186/s12962-022-00395-8
pii: 10.1186/s12962-022-00395-8
pmc: PMC9636798
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
59Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Clin Med (Lond). 2020 May;20(3):e40-e45
pubmed: 32414740
Int J Stroke. 2017 Aug;12(6):615-622
pubmed: 27899743
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Nov;11(11):1065-1069
pubmed: 30975736
Stroke. 2015 Sep;46(9):2591-8
pubmed: 26251241
Int J Stroke. 2016 Jun;11(4):438-45
pubmed: 26880058
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017 Aug;38(8):1594-1599
pubmed: 28596195
Int J Stroke. 2020 Jan;15(1):75-84
pubmed: 30758277
Stroke. 2016 Nov;47(11):2797-2804
pubmed: 27758942
Stroke. 2007 Feb;38(2):414-6
pubmed: 17234987
Syst Rev. 2014 May 21;3:47
pubmed: 24887208
Stroke. 2015 Jul;46(7):1870-6
pubmed: 26012639
Front Neurol. 2017 Dec 14;8:657
pubmed: 29312109
Lancet. 2016 Apr 23;387(10029):1723-31
pubmed: 26898852
Radiology. 2018 Aug;288(2):518-526
pubmed: 29893641
Age Ageing. 2009 Jan;38(1):27-32
pubmed: 19141506
Eur Stroke J. 2018 Mar;3(1):82-91
pubmed: 29900412
Stroke. 1988 May;19(5):604-7
pubmed: 3363593
J Med Econ. 2016 Aug;19(8):785-94
pubmed: 27046347
Stroke. 2018 Mar;49(3):e46-e110
pubmed: 29367334
Neurology. 2016 Mar 15;86(11):1053-9
pubmed: 26873954
Stroke. 2017 Feb;48(2):379-387
pubmed: 28028150
Stroke. 2017 Oct;48(10):2843-2847
pubmed: 28916667
Ir J Med Sci. 2019 Aug;188(3):751-759
pubmed: 30536140
Lancet. 1998 Oct 17;352(9136):1245-51
pubmed: 9788453
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2021 Apr;30(4):105557
pubmed: 33556672
JMIR Res Protoc. 2016 Oct 05;5(4):e195
pubmed: 27707687
Eur Stroke J. 2019 Mar;4(1):6-12
pubmed: 31165090