Abstract
Introduction
Understanding of costs associated with different mechanical thrombectomy (MT) approaches lags behind procedural efficacy and safety considerations. This study evaluates cost-effectiveness of MT using Monopoint (Route 92 Medical, San Mateo, CA) as first-line approach compared to traditional contact aspiration (CA) and stentriever/aspiration (SA).
Methods
Retrospective analysis of consecutively treated ICA terminus or M1 occlusion patients across four high-volume stroke centers was conducted, categorized into Monopoint, CA, or SA groups. Direct device costs and total costs were obtained from institutional databases. Statistical analyses included mixed-effects linear regression and multivariable analysis.
Results
Among 148 patients undergoing MT (Monopoint: 74, CA: 32, SA: 42), device costs were lowest for the Monopoint group ($7836 ± 4570) vs. CA ($10,089 ± 6078, p < 0.001) and SA ($19,069 ± 4730, p < 0.001). Total costs followed a similar pattern (Monopoint: $27,089 ± 19,899, CA: $28,883 ± 14,161, p < 0.001, SA: $63,327 ± 72,440, p < 0.001). Monopoint demonstrated a higher final expanded Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (eTICI) 2C/3 reperfusion rate (85.1% vs. 62.5% for CA, 71.4% for SA, p < 0.001) and fewer passes (1.8 vs. 2.0, p = 0.001). Technique crossover occurred less often with Monopoint compared to CA (6.8% vs. 34.4%, p < 0.001), and similar to SA (7.1%, p = 0.937). Post-procedural subarachnoid hemorrhage was more common with CA (16.7%) or SA (6.3%) compared to Monopoint (1.3%, p = 0.003).
Conclusion
First-line MT with Monopoint showed lower direct and total costs compared to CA and SA. Monopoint cost-effectiveness may be driven by fewer passes, decreased adjunctive device use, higher recanalization rates, fewer complications, and less post-MT hemorrhage, highlighting potential economic benefits of an optimized MT strategy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
