Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 12, 2026
Prehospital Thrombolysis: A Manual from Berlin
Published on: November 26, 2013
Cost-Effectiveness of a Direct-Aspiration First-Pass Technique versus Stent Retriever in Mechanical Thrombectomy
Wuyang Yang1, Ryan P Lee1, Alice L Hung1
1Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Objective:
A direct-aspiration first-pass technique (ADAPT) in mechanical thrombectomy has been described in recent studies as an efficacious strategy compared with using a stent retriever (SR). We sought to evaluate for cost differences of ADAPT technique versus SR as an initial approach.
Methods:
We conducted a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with mechanical thrombectomy at our institution between 2022 and 2023. Patients were grouped into ADAPT with/without SR as a rescue strategy and SR as an initial approach with allowance of concomitant aspiration. Direct cost data (consumables) were obtained. Baseline demographics, stroke metrics, procedure outcomes and cost, and last follow-up outcomes in modified Rankin Scale were compared between 2 groups.
Results:
Fifty-six patients were included. Thirty-seven (66.1%) underwent ADAPT, with 11 (29.7%) eventually requiring an SR. Mean age was 64.8 years. The average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 13.2 in the ADAPT group and 14.0 in the SR group (P = 0.68), with a similar proportion of tissue plasminogen activator (P = 0.53), site of occlusion (P = 0.66), and tandem occlusion (P = 0.69) between the groups. Recanalization was achieved in 94.6% of all patients, with an average of 1.9 passes, 89.3% being TICI 2B or above, with no differences between the 2 groups. Significantly lower cost (P < 0.01) was observed in ADAPT ($14,243.4) compared with SR ($19,003.6). Average follow-up duration was 180.2 days, with mortality of 23.2%. At last follow-up, 55.4% remained functionally independent (modified Rankin Scale score <3) with no difference (P = 0.56) between the ADAPT (59.5%) and SR (47.4%) groups.
Conclusions:
Outcomes were comparable between the ADAPT and SR groups. ADAPT reduced procedural consumables cost by approximately $5000 (25%), even if stent retrievers were allowed to be used for rescue. Establishing ADPAT as initial approach may bring significant direct cost savings while obtaining similar outcomes.
