The feasibility of mechanical thrombectomy versus medical management for acute stroke with a large ischemic territory.

Background: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for acute ischemic stroke is generally avoided when the expected infarction is large (defined as an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score of <6).

Objective: To perform a meta-analysis of recent trials comparing MT with best medical management (BMM) for treatment of acute ischemic stroke with large infarction territory, and then to determine the cost-effectiveness associated with those treatments.

Methods: A meta-analysis of the RESCUE-Japan, SELECT2, and ANGEL-ASPECT trials was conducted using R Studio. Statistical analysis employed the weighted average normal method for calculating mean differences from medians in continuous variables and the risk ratio for categorical variables. TreeAge software was used to construct a cost-effectiveness analysis model comparing MT with BMM in the treatment of ischemic stroke with large infarction territory.

Results: The meta-analysis showed significantly better functional outcomes, with higher rates of patients achieving a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-3 at 90 days with MT as compared with BMM. In the base-case analysis using a lifetime horizon, MT led to a greater gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 3.46 at a lower cost of US$339 202 in comparison with BMM, which led to the gain of 2.41 QALYs at a cost of US$361 896. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$-21 660, indicating that MT was the dominant treatment at a willingness-to-pay of US$70 000.

Conclusions: This study shows that, besides having a better functional outcome at 90-days' follow-up, MT was more cost-effective than BMM, when accounting for healthcare cost associated with treatment outcome.