Inhalation anaesthesia is cost-effective for ambulatory surgery: a clinical comparison with propofol during elective knee arthroscopy

Cost identification analysis of general anesthesia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Rising health costs are challenging anesthesiologists to search for cost-effective anesthetic techniques. We conducted a study to estimate variable cost per case and cost of drug wastage as percentage of total drug cost associated with different modalities of general anesthesia (GA).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This prospective study was carried out after approval by institutional ethical committee in 258 adult patients aged 18-60 years of either sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II, with a surgical duration of 1-4 hours, posted for elective surgery under GA with endotracheal intubation. At the end of surgery, total utilization of each drug, anesthetic gases, and consumables were noted and remaining drug was regarded as wastage. Cost was recorded as per maximum retail price for that particular brand in the market at start of study and total cost was calculated. For purpose of analysis, cases were divided into low flow sevoflurane, high flow sevoflurane, high flow isoflurane, low flow isoflurane, and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA).

RESULTS

The mean variable cost was highest with TIVA (₹2713.82 ± 509.57) and lowest with low flow isoflurane (₹1981.62 ± 335.03; P < 0.001). Drug wastage was 13.1% overall, with highest in low sevoflurane group and lowest in TIVA.

CONCLUSION

Low flow anesthesia with isoflurane is more cost-effective as compared to high flow techniques and TIVA even for short duration surgeries. Rational use of drugs and consumables and minimizing wastage can further reduce anesthesia costs.

Emergence times and airway reactions during general anaesthesia with remifentanil and a laryngeal mask airway: A multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Avoidance of airway complications and rapid emergence from anaesthesia are indispensable for the use of a laryngeal mask airway (LMA). Evidence from adequately powered randomised studies with a low risk of bias for the optimal anaesthetic in this context is limited.

OBJECTIVE

We tested the hypothesis that when using remifentanil-based intra-operative analgesia, desflurane would be the most suitable anaesthetic: with noninferiority in the occurrence of upper airway complications and superiority in emergence times compared with sevoflurane or propofol.

DESIGN

A randomised, multicentre, partially double-blinded, three-arm, parallel-group study.

SETTING

Two university and two regional German hospitals, from February to October 2015.

PATIENTS

A total of 352 patients (age 18 to 75 years, ASA physical status I to III, BMI less than 35 kg m⁻² and fluent in German) were enrolled in this study. All surgery was elective with a duration of 0.5 to 2 h, and general anaesthesia with a LMA was feasible.

INTERVENTION

The patients were randomised to receive desflurane, sevoflurane or propofol anaesthesia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

This study was powered for the primary outcome ‘time to state date of birth’ and the secondary outcome ‘intra-operative cough’. Time to emergence from anaesthesia and the incidence of upper airway complications were assessed on the day of surgery.

RESULTS

The primary outcome was analysed for 343 patients: desflurane (n=114), sevoflurane (n=111) and propofol (n=118). The desflurane group had the fastest emergence. The mean (± SD) times to state the date of birth following desflurane, sevoflurane and propofol were 8.1 ± 3.6, 10.1 ± 4.0 and 9.8 ± 5.1 min, respectively (P < 0.01). There was no difference in upper airway complications (cough and laryngospasm) across the groups, but these complications were less frequent than in previous studies.

CONCLUSION

When using a remifentanil infusion for intra-operative analgesia in association with a LMA, desflurane was associated with a significantly faster emergence and noninferiority in the incidence of intra-operative cough than either sevoflurane or Propofol.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02322502; EudraCT identifier: 2014-003810-96.

Analysis of anesthesia-controlled operating room time after propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia compared with desflurane anesthesia in functional endoscopic sinus surgery

Anesthesia technique may contribute to the improvement of operation room (OR) efficiency by reducing anesthesia-controlled time. We compared the difference between propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and desflurane anesthesia (DES) for functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) undergoing general anesthesiaWe performed a retrospective study using data collected in our hospital to compare the anesthesia-controlled time of FESS using either TIVA via target-controlled infusion with propofol/fentanyl or DES/fentanyl-based anesthesia between January 2010 and December 2011. The various time intervals (surgical time, anesthesia time, extubation time, total OR stay time, post anesthesia care unit [PACU] stay time) and the percentage of prolonged extubation were compared between the 2 anesthetic techniques.We included data from 717 patients, with 305 patients receiving TIVA and 412 patients receiving DES. An emergence time >15 minutes is defined as prolonged extubation. The extubation time was faster (8.8 [3.5] vs. 9.6 [4.0] minutes; P = .03), and the percentage of prolonged extubation was lower (7.5% vs. 13.6%, risk difference 6.1%, P < .001) in the TIVA group than in the DES group. However, there was no significant difference between ACT, total OR stay time, and PACU stay time.In our hospital, propofol-based TIVA by target-controlled infusion provide faster emergence and lower chance of prolonged extubation compared with DES anesthesia in FESS. However, the reduction in extubation time may not improve OR efficiency.

The choice between surgical scrubbing and sterile covering before or after induction of anaesthesia: A prospective study

Background : Day surgery is increasing, and safe and effective logistics are sought. One part of the in-theatre logistics commonly discussed is whether surgical scrub and sterile covering should be done before or after induction of anaesthesia. The aim of the present study was to compare the impact of surgical scrub and sterile covering before vs. after the induction of anaesthesia in male patients scheduled for open hernia repair.    Methods : This is a prospective randomised study. Sixty ASA 1-3 patients scheduled for open hernia repair were randomised to surgical scrub and sterile covering before or after induction of anaesthesia; group "awake" and "anaesthetised". Need for vasoactive medication during anaesthesia was primary study objective. Duration of anaesthesia and surgery, theatre time, recovery room stay and time to discharge, patients and theatre nurses experiences and willingness to have the same logistics on further potential surgeries, by a questionnaire provided before discharge was also assessed.  Results : The duration of anaesthesia was shorter and doses of propofol and remifentanil were reduced by 10 and 13%, respectively, in the awake group. We found still no difference in the need for vasoactive medication during anaesthesia Time in recovery area was significantly reduced in the awake group 39 (SD 15) vs. 48 SD 16) (p<0.05), but time to discharge was not different. There was further no difference in the patients' assessment of quality of care, and only one patient in the awake group would prefer to be anaesthetised on a future procedure. All nurses found pre-anaesthesia scrubbing acceptable as routine.  Conclusion : Surgical scrub and sterile covering before the induction of anaesthesia can be done safely and without jeopardising patients' quality of care and possibly improve perioperative logistics. Further studies are warranted assessing impact of awake scrubbing and sterile covering on quality and efficacy of perioperative care.

Planning for operating room efficiency and faster anesthesia wake-up time in open major upper abdominal surgery

Reducing anesthesia-controlled time (ACT) may improve operation room (OR) efficiency result from different anesthetic techniques. However, the information about the difference in ACT between desflurane (DES) anesthesia and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) techniques for open major upper abdominal surgery under general anesthesia (GA) is not available in the literature.This retrospective study uses our hospital database to analyze the ACT of open major upper abdominal surgery without liver resection after either desflurane/fentanyl-based anesthesia or TIVA via target-controlled infusion with fentanyl/propofol from January 2010 to December 2011. The various time intervals including waiting for anesthesia time, anesthesia time, surgical time, extubation time, exit from OR after extubation, total OR time, and postanesthetic care unit (PACU) stay time and percentage of prolonged extubation (≥15 minutes) were compared between these 2 anesthetic techniques.We included data from 343 patients, with 159 patients receiving TIVA and 184 patients receiving DES. The only significant difference is extubation time, TIVA was faster than the DES group (8.5 ± 3.8 vs 9.4 ± 3.7 minutes; P = 0.04). The factors contributed to prolonged extubation were age, gender, body mass index, DES anesthesia, and anesthesia time.In our hospital, propofol-based TIVA by target-controlled infusion provides faster emergence compared with DES anesthesia; however, it did not improve OR efficiency in open major abdominal surgery. Older, male gender, higher body mass index, DES anesthesia, and lengthy anesthesia time were factors that contribute to extubation time.

Comparison of Anesthesia-Controlled Operating Room Time between Propofol-Based Total Intravenous Anesthesia and Desflurane Anesthesia in Open Colorectal Surgery: A Retrospective Study

We conducted a retrospective study to investigate the anesthesia-controlled time and factors that contribute to prolonged extubation in open colorectal surgery. Using our hospital database, demographic data, various time intervals (waiting for anesthesia time, anesthesia time, surgical time, emergence time, exit from operating room after extubation, total operating room time, and post-anesthesia care unit stay time), and incidence of prolonged extubation (≥ 15 mins), were compared between patients who received desflurane/fentanyl-based anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia via target-controlled infusion with fentanyl/propofol. Logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the association between variables that contributed to prolonged extubation. In conclusion, the anesthesia-controlled time was similar in desflurane anesthesia and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia for open colorectal surgery in our hospital. Surgical time greater than 210 minutes, as well as age, contributed to prolonged extubation.

Airway reactions and emergence times in general laryngeal mask airway anaesthesia: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Desflurane's short emergence time supports fast track anaesthesia. Data on the rate of upper airway complications and emergence time when desflurane is used with laryngeal mask airway (LMA) are controversial and limited.

OBJECTIVES

To compare recovery time variables and the rates of upper airway adverse events in patients with an LMA undergoing general surgery with desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane or propofol anaesthesia.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search for eligible RCTs in Embase (Elsevier) and in PubMed (National Library of Medicine) databases up to September 2013.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

RCTs investigating the rates of cough overall, cough at emergence, laryngospasm, time to eye opening, time to removal of the LMA, time to respond to command and time to state date of birth in patients with an LMA, during emergence from desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane or propofol anaesthesia.

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs were included and analysed. We found a strong interstudy variability. There was no difference in the rates of upper airway events between desflurane and sevoflurane or between desflurane and a control group consisting of all the other anaesthetics combined. Comparing desflurane (n = 284) with all other anaesthetic groups (n = 313), the risk ratio [95% confidence interval (95% CI)] was 1.12 (0.63 to 2.02, P = 0.70). Cough at emergence was only measured in patients receiving desflurane (n = 148) and sevoflurane (n = 146): the risk ratio (95% CI) was 1.49 (0.55 to 4.02, P = 0.43). Laryngospasm was rare and there was no significant difference in its incidence when desflurane (n = 262) was compared with all other anaesthetics combined (n = 289; risk ratio 1.03; 95% CI 0.33 to 3.20, P = 0.96). The times of all emergence variables were significantly faster in the desflurane group than in all other groups.

CONCLUSION

When using an LMA, upper airway adverse reactions in association with desflurane anaesthesia were no different from those noted with sevoflurane, isoflurane or propofol anaesthesia. Emergence from general anaesthesia with desflurane is significantly faster than all the other anaesthetics. Due to interstudy variations and the small size of the trials, further large-scale, multicentre studies are required to confirm or refute the results of this meta-analysis.

Limiting the accessibility of cost-prohibitive drugs reduces overall anesthetic drug costs: a retrospective before and after analysis

PURPOSE

Cost effectiveness is becoming increasingly important in today's healthcare environment. Remifentanil, dexmedetomidine, and desflurane are costly agents that often have suitable alternatives to their use. We sought to identify changes in cost and outcomes following interventions that limited the availability of these drugs.

METHODS

We calculated anesthetic drug costs for all operating room procedures performed before and after the accessibility interventions. We retrospectively compared drug costs per case and the frequency of agent use before and after the interventions. In addition, we analyzed the incidence of adverse outcomes, including delayed out-of-room times, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), unplanned intubations, use of naloxone, and reintubations. Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney and Chi square analyses were used to quantify differences in cost, use, and outcomes between cohorts.

RESULTS

Of the 27,233 cases we identified, 24,201 cases were analyzed. The mean anesthetic drug costs per case were significantly lower after the interventions vs before at ($21.44 vs $32.39, respectively), a cost savings of $10.95 (95% confidence interval, $9.86 to $12.04; P < 0.001). Additionally, a comparison of data after vs before the interventions revealed the following results: remifentanil use was significantly lower (3.5% vs 9.2% of cases; P < 0.001). Dexmedetomidine use did not differ significantly (0.4% vs 0.5% of cases; P = 0.07), and desflurane use was significantly lower (0.6% vs 20.2% of cases; P < 0.001). There was no significant relationship between the interventions and the frequency of delayed out-of-room times (15.5% vs 15.9%; P = 0.41), unplanned intubations (0.02% vs 0.03%; P = 0.60), and reintubations (0.01% vs 0.03%; P = 0.28). Postoperative nausea and vomiting decreased significantly after the interventions (22.8% vs 24.4%; P = 0.003), and naloxone use showed a significant increase (0.22% vs 0.11% of cases; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing the accessibility of these cost-prohibitive agents resulted in significant anesthetic drug cost savings and decreased utilization of remifentanil and desflurane. The interventions had no significant effect on patient recovery time, incidence of unplanned intubations, or incidence of reintubation, but they were associated with a decrease in PONV and an increase in naloxone use.

Comparative evaluation of propofol, sevoflurane and desflurane for neuroanaesthesia: A prospective randomised study in patients undergoing elective supratentorial craniotomy

Background and Aims:

Both inhalational and intravenous anaesthetic agents are being used for neuroanaesthesia. Clinical trials comparing “propofol and sevoflurane” and “desflurane and sevoflurane” have been published. However, the comparison of all the three anaesthetics in neurosurgical patients has not been done. A randomised clinical study was carried out comparing propofol, sevoflurane and desflurane to find the ideal neuroanaesthetic agent.

Methods:

A total of 75 adult patients undergoing elective craniotomy for supratentorial tumours were included in the study. The patients were induced with morphine 0.1 mg/kg and thiopentone 4-6 mg/kg. Neuromuscular blockade was facilitated with vecuronium. The patients were randomised to receive propofol, sevoflurane or desflurane along with nitrous oxide in oxygen for maintenance of anaesthesia. The neuromuscular blockade was reversed following the surgery once the patients opened eyes or responded to verbal commands. The three anaesthetics were compared for their effects on haemodynamics, brain relaxation and emergence characteristics.

Results:

The mean arterial blood pressure during anaesthesia was comparable among the groups. The patients receiving sevoflurane had faster heart rates intraoperatively when compared to desflurane (P < 0.05). The brain relaxation scores at various intraoperative time frames were comparable among the three groups (P > 0.05). The time to response to verbal commands were significantly prolonged with use of sevoflurane (8.0 ± 2.9 min) when compared to propofol (5.3 ± 2.9 min) and desflurane (5.2 ± 2.6 min) (P = 0.003). However, the time to emergence and the number of patients who had early emergence (<15 min) were comparable among the groups (P > 0.05). The quality of emergence (coughing and emergence agitation), as well as postoperative complications, were also comparable among the three groups.

Conclusions:

All the three anaesthetic agents-propofol, sevoflurane and desflurane appear comparable and acceptable with regard to their clinical profile during anaesthesia in patients undergoing elective supratentorial surgeries.

An analysis of anesthesia-controlled operating room time after propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia compared with desflurane anesthesia in ophthalmic surgery: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Anesthetic techniques can contribute to reduction of anesthesia-controlled time to improve operating room (OR) efficiency. However, little is known about the difference in anesthesia-controlled time between propofol-based total IV anesthesia (TIVA) and desflurane anesthesia (DES) techniques for ophthalmic surgery under general anesthesia.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis using hospital databases to compare the anesthesia-controlled times of ophthalmic surgery patients receiving either TIVA via target-controlled infusion with propofol/fentanyl or desflurane/fentanyl-based anesthesia between January 2010 and December 2011. The various time intervals (surgical time, incision to surgical completion and application of dressings; anesthesia time, start of anesthesia to extubation; extubation time, surgery complete and dressings applied to extubation; time in OR, arrival in the OR to departure from the OR; postanesthetic care unit (PACU) stay time, arrival in the PACU to discharge from the PACU to the general ward; and total surgical suite time, arrival in the OR to discharge from the PACU to the general ward) that comprise a patient's hospital stay and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting were compared between the 2 anesthetic techniques.

RESULTS

We included data from 1405 patients, with 595 patients receiving TIVA and 810 receiving DES. The extubation time was faster (TIVA-DES = -1.85 minutes, 99.2% confidence interval [CI], -2.47 to -1.23 minutes) and the PACU stay time was shorter (TIVA-DES = -3.62 minutes, 99.2% CI, -6.97 to -0.10 minutes) in the TIVA group than in the DES group. However, there was no significant difference in total surgical suite time between groups (TIVA-DES = -5.03 minutes, 99.2% CI, -11.75 to 1.69 minutes). We performed the random-effects analyses while stratifying for procedure and showed that the extubation time in the TIVA group was faster by 14% (99.2% CI, 9% to 19%, P < 0.0001) relative to the DES group, and the PACU stay time was faster by 5% (99.2% CI, 1% to 10%, P = 0.002). Significantly fewer patients suffered postoperative nausea and vomiting and required rescue therapy in the TIVA group than in the DES group (11.3% vs 32.2%, risk difference 21.0%, 95% CI, 16.9% to 25.1%, P < 0.001 and 23.9% vs 54.0%, risk difference 30.1%, 95% CI, 18.3% to 42.0%, P = 0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In our hospital, the use of TIVA reduced the mean time to extubation by at least 9% and PACU stay time by more than 1% when compared with the use of DES anesthesia for ophthalmic surgery.

Desflurane vs. sevoflurane as the main inhaled anaesthetic for spontaneous breathing via a laryngeal mask for varicose vein day surgery: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Sevoflurane has become widely used in day surgery; however, desflurane may be a valuable alternative even in this setting. This study compares emergence from anaesthesia for day surgery with spontaneous breathing using either desflurane or sevoflurane.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, single-blinded study examined 70 ASA III patients undergoing elective ambulatory varicose vein surgery. Primary endpoint was emergence time (cessation of anaesthetic gas to communicating). Secondary endpoints included post-operative pain, nausea, time to discharge, and patient satisfaction. Patients were anaesthetized according to a standardized protocol including multimodal analgesia and antiemetic therapy and were randomized to receive sevoflurane or desflurane as the main anaesthetic while breathing spontaneously through a laryngeal mask airway. Fresh gas flow was oxygen in air 1 : 2 l/min.

RESULTS

Intra-operative anaesthesia was uneventful apart from airway irritation observed in 5/35 desflurane and 1/35 sevoflurane patients. Emergence was 25-40% faster in patients anaesthetized with desflurane. Pain and post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were equally infrequent in both groups. Overall, patient satisfaction was high with no difference between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Desflurane is associated with a faster emergence with no differences during the post-operative course except a somewhat higher incidence of airway irritation.

A Comparison of Selective Spinal Anesthesia with Hyperbaric Bupivacaine and General Anesthesia with Desflurane for Outpatient Knee Arthroscopy

In this randomized and controlled trial, 64 adult ambulatory knee arthroscopy patients received either selective spinal anesthesia (SSA) with 4 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine or general anesthesia (GA) with desflurane. We conducted the study to determine whether SSA with small-dose bupivacaine provides equal fast-tracking possibilities, a shorter stay in the postanesthesia care unit, and earlier discharge home compared with GA with desflurane. Patients with a high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting received prophylaxis in the GA group. No difference was seen in the fast-tracking possibilities or time in the postanesthesia care unit between the groups. Home readiness was achieved after 114 (31-174) and 129 (28-245) min (NS) in the SSA and GA groups, respectively. In the hospital, the pain scores were significantly (P < 0.001) lower in the SSA group compared with the GA group and the need for postoperative opioids was significantly (P = 0.008) larger after GA. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was 0% versus 19% in the SSA and GA groups (P = 0.024), respectively. We conclude that for outpatients undergoing knee arthroscopy, SSA with hyperbaric bupivacaine provides equal recovery times with less frequent side effects compared with GA with desflurane.