ArticleInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2025
Cost-effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy performed with the Monopoint reperfusion system compared to conventional contact aspiration and combined stentriever and aspiration.
Article in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IntroductionUnderstanding 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).MethodsRetrospective 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.ResultsAmong 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).ConclusionFirst-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.
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.