ArticleJournal of neurointerventional surgery2023
Mechanical thrombectomy is cost-effective versus medical management alone around Europe in patients with low ASPECTS.
Article in Journal of neurointerventional surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Methodological Systematic Review of Health Economic Decision Modeling Studies.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- Endovascular thrombectomy for large-core stroke: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria · 2025Pooled it
- Success with incrementally faster times to endovascular therapy (SWIFT-EVT): A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association · 2024Pooled it
- Safety and clinical outcomes of endovascular therapy versus medical management in late presentation of large ischemic stroke.European stroke journal · 2024Trial
- Cost Effectiveness of Endovascular Thrombectomy for Large Ischemic Strokes: A US Healthcare Payer Markov Model Informed by Randomized Trials.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Article
- Enhancing stroke care in Europe: cost-effectiveness analysis of strategies addressing gaps in acute ischemic stroke care.European stroke journal · 2026Article
- Exploring the Generalizability of Foreign Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Spain Using Data From a Scoping Review of Multinational Studies.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke with established large infarct in Germany: a decision tree and Markov model.Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2025Article
- Comparative effectiveness of intra-arterial thrombolysis vs. mechanical thrombectomy: a literature review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Cost-effectiveness of intra-arterial thrombolysis after successful thrombectomy.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2025Article
- Endovascular thrombectomy is cost-saving in patients with acute ischemic stroke with large infarct.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Current and future trends in acute ischemic stroke treatment: direct-to-angiography suite, middle vessel occlusion, large core, and minor strokes.European journal of radiology open · 2023Article
- Editorial: Management of acute stroke with large core.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo demonstrate, by a cost-effectiveness analysis, the efficiency of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) versus medical management (MM) in patients with a low Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) from the RESCUE Study.
methodsA cost-effectiveness model was designed to project both direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of MT versus MM in eight European countries (Spain, UK, France, Italy, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands). Our model was created based on previously published health-economic data in those countries. Procedure costs, acute, mid-term, and long-term care costs were projected based on expected modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores as reported in the RESCUE-Japan LIMIT trial.
resultsMT was found to be a cost-effective option in eight different countries across Europe (Spain, Italy, UK, France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden). with a lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varying from US$2 875 to US$11 202/QALY depending on the country. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed 100% acceptability of MT at the willingness to pay (WTP) of US$40 000 for the eight countries.
conclusionsMT is efficient versus MM alone for patients with low ASPECTS in eight countries across Europe. Patients with a large ischemic core could be treated with MT because it is both clinically beneficial and economically sustainable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.