RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Standard medical management of spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) and surgical hematoma evacuation starkly differ, and whilst landmark randomised control trials report no clinical benefit of early surgical evacuation compared with medical treatment in supratentorial ICH, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) with thrombolysis has been neglected within these studies. However, recent technological advancements in MIS have renewed interest in the surgical treatment of ICH. Several economic evaluations have focused on the benefits of MIS in ischaemic stroke management, but no economic evaluations have yet been performed comparing MIS to standard medical treatment for ICH. MATERIALS AND METHOD: All costs were sourced from the UK in GBP. Where possible, the 2019/2020 NHS reference costs were used. The MISTIE III study was used to analyse the outcomes of patients undergoing either MIS or standard medical treatment in this economic evaluation. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for MIS was £485,240.26 for every quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Although MIS resulted in a higher QALY compared to medical treatment, the gain was insignificant at 0.011 QALY. Four sensitivity analyses based on combinations of alternative EQ-5D values and categorisation of MIS outcomes, alongside alterations to the cost of significant adverse events, were performed to check the robustness of the ICER calculation. The most realistic sensitivity analysis showed a potential increase in cost effectiveness when clot size is reduced to <15ml, with the ICER falling to £74,335.57. DISCUSSION: From the perspective of the NHS, MIS with thrombolysis is not cost-effective compared to optimal medical treatment. ICER shows that intention-to-treat MIS would require a cost of £485,240.26 to gain one extra QALY, which is significantly above the NHS threshold of £30,000. Further UK studies with ICH survivor utilities, more replicable surgical technique, and the reporting of clot size reduction are indicated as the present sensitivity analysis suggests that MIS is promising. Greater detail about outcomes and complications would ensure improved cost-benefit analyses and support valid and efficient allocation of resources by the NHS.
