Cost-Effectiveness of Endovascular Thrombectomy in M2 Occlusion Stroke: Real-World Experience Versus Clinical Trials

Objectives: This study sought to establish the cost-effectiveness of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in M2 occlusions compared with patients who did not have EVT using both real-world and clinical trial evidence. Methods: The effectiveness of EVT in M2 occlusions was informed by the International Stroke Perfusion Imaging Registry (INSPIRE, real-world data for a wide range of strokes) and HERMES collaboration, trial data. Patients who received EVT and non-EVT treatment from INSPIRE were matched according to baseline characteristics. A Markov model with 7 health states defined by the 3-month modified Rankin scale (mRS) was constructed. Endovascular thrombectomy and non-EVT-treated patients in real-world, and clinical trials were run through the Markov model separately to generate the results from a limited societal perspective. National statistics and published literature informed the long-term probability of recurrent stroke, mortality, costs of management post-stroke, non-medical care, and nursing home care. Results: A total of 83 (42 EVT and 41 non-EVT) patients were matched of 278 (45 EVT and 233 non-EVT) patients in INSPIRE who had M2 occlusion stroke at presentation. The long-term simulation estimated that offering EVT to M2 occlusion stroke patients was associated with greater benefits (5.48 EVT vs 5.24 non-EVT quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) and higher costs (A$133 457 EVT vs A$126 127 non-EVT) compared with non-EVT treatment in real-world from a limited societal perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EVT in real-world was A$29 981 (€19 488)/QALY. The analysis using the data from HERMES collaboration yielded consistent results for the EVT patients. Comparison with real-world cost-effectiveness analyses of EVT in internal carotid artery/middle cerebral artery-M1 (ICA/MCA-M1) occlusion suggested a potential reduced QALY gains and increased ICER in M2 occlusions. Conclusions: Our study suggested that the benefits gained from EVT in M2 occlusion stroke in the real-world were similar to that derived from the clinical trials. The clinical and cost benefits from EVT appeared to be reduced in M2 compared with that from the ICA/MCA-M1 occlusions. Clinical Impact: Our study has provided valuable insights into the clinical significance of endovascular therapy (EVT) in the context of M2 occlusion stroke within a real-world setting. It is noteworthy that our findings indicate that the benefits obtained from EVT in M2 occlusion stroke closely align with those observed in controlled clinical trials. However, it is essential to recognize that there is a reduction in the clinical and cost-related advantages when comparing M2 occlusions to more proximal ICA/MCA-M1 occlusions.