Cost-effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy performed with the Monopoint reperfusion system compared to conventional contact aspiration and combined stentriever and aspiration

Introduction Understanding 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). Methods Retrospective 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. Results Among 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). Conclusion First-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.