Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare the volume of equipment and equipment costs in a cohort of consecutive patients with anterior circulation large vessel occlusion treated with a standardised aspiration first approach to those treated with a stent retriever first approach. METHODS: The equipment used in each case was recorded from a prospectively maintained equipment log. We then compared the volume of equipment used in each group. The cost of this equipment was calculated for each group based on local prices. Estimated equipment costs were then compared. RESULTS: Our patient cohort consisted of 127 consecutive patients who were treated with a non-standardised stent retriever first technique (group A), 127 consecutive patients who underwent a new standardised aspiration first technique (group B), and 126 consecutive patients reflecting more recent practise where an aspiration first approach has been an established practise in our department (group C).Standardised aspiration first approach results in reduced equipment usage in thrombectomy procedures. The total equipment cost per case in the stent retriever first group (group A) was significantly higher at €4726.4 ($4818.3) versus €3093.1 ($3153.2) in the aspiration first group (group B), a reduction of 34.6% and €2798.5 ($2852.9) in the current practise group (group C), a reduction of 40.8%. There was no statistically significant difference in cost between groups B and C (p = 0.57). CONCLUSION: The standardised aspiration first technique utilised a reduced volume of equipment and confers a 40.8% reduced cost per procedure compared to a stent retriever first approach.