Cost-Effectiveness of Propofol (Diprivan) Versus Inhalational Anesthetics to Maintain General Anesthesia in Noncardiac Surgery in the United States

OBJECTIVES

It is not known whether using propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) to reduce incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is cost-effective. We assessed the economic impact of propofol TIVA versus inhalational anesthesia in adult patients for ambulatory and inpatient procedures relevant to the US healthcare system.

METHODS

Two models simulate individual patient pathways through inpatient and ambulatory surgery with propofol TIVA or inhalational anesthesia with economic inputs from studies on adult surgical US patients. Efficacy inputs were obtained from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the model estimates.

RESULTS

Lower PONV rate, shorter stay in the post-anesthesia care unit, and reduced need for rescue antiemetics offset the higher costs for anesthetics, analgesics, and muscle relaxants with propofol TIVA and reduced cost by 11.41 ± 10.73 USD per patient in the inpatient model and 11.25 ± 9.81 USD in the ambulatory patient model. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated strong robustness of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintenance of general anesthesia with propofol was cost-saving compared to inhalational anesthesia in both inpatient and ambulatory surgical settings in the United States. These economic results support current guideline recommendations, which endorse propofol TIVA to reduce PONV risk and enhance postoperative recovery.

Procedural sedation for direct current cardioversion: a feasibility study between two management strategies in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

A cardiologist-only approach to procedural sedation with midazolam in the setting of elective cardioversion (DCC) for AF has already been proven as safe as sedation with propofol and anaesthesiologist assistance. No data exist regarding the safety of such a strategy during emergency procedures. The aim of this study is to compare the feasibility of sedation with midazolam, administered by a cardiologist, to an anaesthesiologist-assisted protocol with propofol in emergency DCC.

METHODS

Single centre, prospective, open blinded, randomized study including all consecutive patients admitted to the Emergency Department requiring urgent or emergency DCC. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either propofol or midazolam treatment arm. Patients in the midazolam group were managed by the cardiologist only, while patients treated with propofol group underwent DCC with anaesthesiologist assistance.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients were enrolled and split into two groups. Eighteen patients (26.1%) experienced peri-procedural adverse events (bradycardia, severe hypotension and severe hypoxia), which were similar between the two groups and all successfully managed by the cardiologist. No deaths, stroke or need for invasive ventilation were registered. Patients treated with propofol experienced a greater decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure when compared with those treated with midazolam. As the procedure was shorter when midazolam was used, the median cost of urgent/emergency DCC with midazolam was estimated to be 129.0 € (1st-3rd quartiles 114.6-151.6) and 195.6 € (1st-3rd quartiles 147.3-726.7) with propofol (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Procedural sedation with midazolam given by the cardiologist alone was feasible, well-tolerated and cost-effective in emergency DCC.

Propofol use in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound

Compared to standard endoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) are often lengthier and more complex, thus requiring higher doses of sedatives for patient comfort and compliance. The aim of this review is to provide the reader with information regarding the use, safety profile, and merits of propofol for sedation in advanced endoscopic procedures like ERCP and EUS, based on the current literature.

Clinical and economic impact of substituting dexmedetomidine for propofol due to a US drug shortage: examination of coronary artery bypass graft patients at an urban medical centre

BACKGROUND

Propofol has reduced healthcare costs in coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery patients by decreasing post-operative duration of mechanical ventilation. However, the US shortage of propofol necessitated the use of alternative agents.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to evaluate clinical and economic implications of substituting dexmedetomidine for propofol in patients undergoing CABG surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients undergoing isolated, elective CABG surgery and sedated with either propofol or dexmedetomidine during the study period were included. The cohorts were matched 1:1 based on important characteristics. The primary outcome was the number of patients achieving a post-operative duration of mechanical ventilation ≤6 h. Secondary outcomes were post-operative intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) ≤48 h, total post-operative LOS ≤5 days, the need for adjunctive opioid therapy and associated cost savings. Variables recorded included patient demographics, co-morbid medical conditions, health risks, sedation drug doses, post-operative medical complications and sedation-related adverse events. Univariate and multivariate analyses were completed to examine the relationship between these covariates and post-operative LOS. The cost analysis consisted of examination of the net financial benefit (or cost) of choosing dexmedetomidine versus propofol in the study population, with utilisation observed in the study converted to costs using institutional data from the Premier database.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients were included, with 42 patients per cohort. Mechanical ventilation duration ≤6 h was achieved in 24 (57.1 %) versus 7 (16.7 %) in the dexmedetomidine and propofol cohorts, respectively (p < 0.001). More patients treated with dexmedetomidine achieved ICU LOS ≤48 h (p < 0.05) and total hospital LOS ≤5 days (p < 0.05), as compared with the propofol group. Multivariate analysis revealed that having one or more post-operative medical complication was the most significant predictor of increased post-operative LOS, whereas choosing dexmedetomidine was also significant in terms of reduced post-operative LOS. The estimated net financial benefit of choosing dexmedetomidine versus propofol was US$2,613 per patient (year 2012 value).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that use of dexmedetomidine as an alternative to propofol for sedation of CABG patients post-operatively contributes to reduced mechanical ventilation time, ICU LOS and post-operative LOS. Higher drug costs resulting from the propofol shortage were offset by savings in post-operative room and board costs. Additional savings may be possible by preventing medical complications to the extent possible.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of propofol versus midazolam for procedural sedation in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of using propofol versus midazolam for procedural sedation (PS) in adults in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

The authors conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the health care provider. The primary outcome was the incremental cost (or savings) to achieve one additional successful sedation with propofol compared to midazolam. A decision model was developed in which the clinical effectiveness and cost of a PS strategy using either agent was estimated. The authors derived estimates of clinical effectiveness and risk of adverse events (AEs) from a systematic review. The cost of each clinical outcome was determined by incorporating the baseline cost of the ED visit, the cost of the drug, the cost of labor of physicians and nurses, the cost and probability of an AE, and the cost and probability of a PS failure. A standard meta-analytic technique was used to calculate the weighted mean difference in recovery times and obtain mean drug doses from patient-level data from a randomized controlled trial. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the uncertainty around the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using Monte Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

Choosing a sedation strategy with propofol resulted in average savings of $17.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] = $24.13 to $10.44) per sedation performed. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -$597.03 (95% credibility interval -$6,434.03 to $6,113.57) indicating savings of $597.03 per additional successful sedation performed with propofol. This result was driven by shorter recovery times and was robust to all sensitivity analyses performed.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that using propofol for PS in the ED is a cost-saving strategy.

Sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: the changing landscape

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Most patients require sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Moderate sedation for these procedures has traditionally been provided by the endoscopist with benzodiazepine and/or a narcotic. As endoscopy has increased in numbers and complexity, however, more effective sedation and analgesia is frequently required. Controversy has ensued over safe and efficient sedation practice. This review seeks to delineate what has been learned about this topic in the recent literature.

RECENT FINDINGS

There has been an increase both in the number of endoscopic procedures performed and in the use of propofol for endoscopic sedation. Studies have focused on several basic issues: alternatives to anesthesiologist-supervised propofol, other sedation regimens, and complications related to sedation.

SUMMARY

Alternatives to anesthesiologist-supervised propofol include nurse-administered propofol sedation supervised by the endoscopist, and patient controlled sedation. While other sedative regimens continue to be examined, the use of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy will continue to increase. Structured nurse-administered propofol programs appear to be safe, but the occurrence of severe respiratory depression and the ability to rescue remain concerns. Further study into appropriate sedation training, patient selection, ability to rescue, complications and value of anesthesiologist-directed sedation is necessary.

[To reduce drug expenditure in the operating room (OR)--a paradigm]

BACKGROUND

The main advantages of pharmacy controlled IV preparations (CIVAS) are reduced expenditures, contaminations, and human errors. Today, IV preparations by physicians in the operating room (OR) are based on axioms such as: purchased drugs have standard dosages, IV are prepared immediately before operation, quantity of drug used is unpredictable due to patient's body weight and type of operation and opened injections can't be used for different patients and operations. Due to those limitations, the quantities of drugs used are significantly lower than supplied and wastage cost is high.

AIM

To optimize CIVAS and reduce drug expenditure, using techniques from management and engineering sciences.

METHOD

A model of optimization, based on credibility and prediction tests was used to analyze CIVAS. The model uses parameters such as number and type of operations, drugs and quantities/operation. It identifies wastage for each drug used (quantities and cost) and predicts optimal doses and quantities to be prepared.

RESULTS

Although wastage (quantities) ranged from 30-70%, wastage cost was attributed mainly to two drugs: rocuronium (72%) and propofol (13 %). The model predicts that preparation of three standard doses of rocuronium will allow a 52.7% cost saving from the OR's IV drug budget.

CONCLUSION

This optimization model can be applied in wards where wastage cost of IV drugs is high. It will indicate which standard doses of which drug should be prepared, that will enable lowest wastage with minimal addition of manpower.

Practice efficiency and economics: the case for rapid recovery sedation agents for colonoscopy in a screening population

GOAL

To determine rapidly acting agents' impact on practice efficiency and cost for outpatient colonoscopy in a screening population.

BACKGROUND

Propofol-mediated endoscopic sedation is popular due to rapid sedation onset and superior recovery profile compared with sedation with an opioid and benzodiazepine. There are few data on the impact of this type of sedation on the economics and efficiency of an endoscopy unit.

STUDY

A provider-perspective economic model assessed the ability of propofol and fospropofol disodium (Aquavan, GPI 15715, MGI Pharma) to increase practice efficiency and determined break-even costs based on current colonoscopy reimbursement levels. Reimbursement inputs by practice setting, costs, and recovery profiles-taken from published literature examining time to discharge-were used to populate the model. To measure robustness of model results to changes in base case inputs, sensitivity analyses were performed. Using a Monte Carlo simulation, inputs were varied simultaneously and randomly for 1000 iterations to determine 95% confidence intervals (CI) for break-even costs.

RESULTS

In the time to complete 1 colonoscopy with midazolam/meperidine, 1.76 colonoscopies can be completed with propofol and 1.91 colonoscopies can be completed with fospropofol disodium. This efficiency benefit produced a break-even cost for rapid recovery agents of $71.53 (95% CI: $38.39, $105.67) in a hospital outpatient clinic and $61.48 (95% CI: $41.33, $108.99) in an ambulatory surgical center. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated the break-even cost of these agents was most sensitive to operating costs and time to discharge ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid recovery agents for colonoscopy can improve practice efficiency and offer economic advantages over traditional sedation.

Hemodynamic effects, recovery profiles, and costs of remifentanil-based anesthesia with propofol or desflurane for septorhinoplasty

OBJECTIVE

To compare hemodynamics, recovery profiles, postoperative side effects and costs of desflurane-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil anesthesia for septorhinoplasty operations.

METHODS

A prospective and randomized study was carried out at the Gazi University Hospital, Ankara, Turkey from April to September 2003. Forty patients undergoing septorhinoplasty operations were randomly allocated to receive desflurane-remifentanil (Group DES-REM) or total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) (Group TIVA). Anesthesia was induced in both groups with remifentanil 1 microg x ml (-1), propofol 2-2.5 mg.kg-1 and pancuronium 0.1 mg.kg-1. Maintenance was achieved with O2 50% in air at 4 L.min-1 and infusion of remifentanil 0.1 microg x ml (-1).min-1 in both groups. Group DES-REM received desflurane at 1 minimum alveolar concentration and Group TIVA received 10-4 mg.kg-1.hour-1 of propofol. Propofol infusion and desflurane were discontinued with the last surgical stitches, but remifentanil infusion continued in both groups until the nose was covered with plaster. Hemodynamic variables were recorded during the operation and one hour postoperatively in 5 min intervals. We recorded time of extubation, spontaneous eye opening and response to verbal commands times, visual analog scale pain scores, postoperative nausea and vomiting and Aldrete Recovery Score. Drug dosages and costs of each technique were determined.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with respect to hemodynamic parameters, recovery profile, adverse effects, Aldrete Recovery Score and cost analysis. Visual analog scale at 5 min postoperatively was higher in group desflurane-remifentanil compared to group propofol-remifentanil (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Both desflurane-remifentanil and TIVA provide perioperative hemodynamic stability, early and easy recovery with similar cost profiles for septorhinoplasty operations.

[Propofol for paediatric patients in ear, nose and throat surgery. Practicability, quality and cost-effectiveness of different anaesthesia procedures for adenoidectomy in infants]

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was an improvement in patient comfort, reduction of anaesthesia costs and room contamination by the use of propofol for adenoidectomy.

METHODS

A total of 103 infants (aged 1-5 years) undergoing elective adenoidectomy were randomized for anaesthesia with sevoflurane-nitrous oxide/oxygen (group 1), sevoflurane-air/alfentanil (group 2), alfentanil-propofol under induction with sevoflurane (group 3) or alfentanil-propofol (group 4).

RESULTS

Using propofol, postoperative agitation and emesis were significantly less and the anaesthesia costs as well as the need for analgesics was reduced compared to inhalative anaesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of propofol for preschool children undergoing ear, nose and throat (ENT) surgery seems to be advantageous because of less postoperative agitation, emesis and costs.

Addition of dexmedetomidine to standard sedation regimens after cardiac surgery: an outcomes analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To characterize inpatient use of intravenous sedatives in the real-world setting, and to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes when dexmedetomidine was used with midazolam and propofol for select cardiovascular procedures.

DESIGN

12-month retrospective analysis.

DATA SOURCE

An administrative claims database of operational data from a nationally representative sample of 250 medical and surgical hospitals.

PATIENTS

Patients who received midazolam plus propofol (9996 patients) or dexmedetomidine, midazolam, plus propofol (356 patients) after cardiac valve or vessel surgery.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The source of patient demographics (e.g., age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index) and outcomes (e.g., charges, length of stay, mortality rate) was the hospital billing claim form. Patients in the dexmedetomidine-midazolam-propofol cohort tended to be younger and male and to have fewer comorbidities than those midazolam-propofol cohort. The primary outcomes for the three-drug cohort showed significant reductions in total charges/patient (approximately $18,000, p<0.05), total hospital length of stay (0.6 days, p<0.0001), days in the intensive care unit or cardiac care unit (3.87 days, p<0.0001), and mortality (2%, p=0.0142). Although pharmacy charges were higher (approximately $4000/patient), lower charges for the intensive care or cardiac care unit, operating room, room and board, and respiratory services were observed in the dexmedetomidinemidazolam-propofol cohort compared with the two-drug cohort. Also, mechanical ventilation was shorter by approximately 0.5 day in the three-drug cohort (p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

These initial findings of a real-world assessment of dexmedetomidine use with other agents suggest favorable clinical and economic outcomes. Further research through randomized clinical trials of dexmedetomidine is warranted to better understand its optimum patient population, dosage, and the causality of the results, and to confirm the potential clinical and economic benefits observed in our patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sedation and analgesia regimens during fracture manipulation in the pediatric emergency department

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis, from a hospital's perspective, of 4 procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) regimens to facilitate forearm fracture manipulation in the pediatric emergency department (ED): deep sedation with ketamine/midazolam (K/M) administration, propofol/fentanyl administration, fentanyl/midazolam (F/M) administration, and axillary block.

DESIGN/METHODS

We constructed a decision analytic model using relevant probabilities from published studies of pediatric patients who underwent fracture manipulation in the EDs. Total costs were calculated by assessing ED resource utilization associated with uncomplicated PSA and with PSA complicated by adverse events. Costs of consumable equipment were considered to be fixed. Total sedation time, personnel time, and drug costs were considered variable. We assumed that all PSA regimens provided effective relief from procedural distress. Failure rates for axillary block were estimated based on reports in the literature. When patients experienced emesis, recovery agitation, respiratory depression, lidocaine toxicity, or regional block failure, we assumed that the patients would require 1 additional hour of ED stay. Sensitivity analyses of all key variables in the model were performed to identify those that may result in a change in the preferred option. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to assess model robustness.

RESULTS

Under baseline assumptions, the propofol/fentanyl regimen was the most cost-effective choice (expected cost, 84.06 US dollars), followed by axillary block (88.18 US dollars), K/M (105.32 US dollars), and F/M (159.79 US dollars), respectively. Varying the fixed and variable costs by 50% to 200% of their baseline values did not alter the ranking. When ketamine and propofol were administered without adjunctive midazolam and fentanyl, respectively, propofol remained the optimum choice. With total PSA time as the outcome measure, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 8.1 US dollars and 24.9 US dollars per hour of ED time saved, for propofol/fentanyl versus axillary block and for axillary block versus K/M, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Among PSA regimens during forearm fracture manipulation in the pediatric ED, propofol/fentanyl is the most cost-effective regimen followed by axillary block, K/M, and F/M.

Sedation in the intensive care unit with remifentanil/propofol versus midazolam/fentanyl: a randomised, open-label, pharmacoeconomic trial

Introduction

Remifentanil is an opioid with a unique pharmacokinetic profile. Its organ-independent elimination and short context-sensitive half time of 3 to 4 minutes lead to a highly predictable offset of action. We tested the hypothesis that with an analgesia-based sedation regimen with remifentanil and propofol, patients after cardiac surgery reach predefined criteria for discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) sooner, resulting in shorter duration of time spent in the ICU, compared to a conventional regimen consisting of midazolam and fentanyl. In addition, the two regimens were compared regarding their costs.

Methods

In this prospective, open-label, randomised, single-centre study, a total of 80 patients (18 to 75 years old), who had undergone cardiac surgery, were postoperatively assigned to one of two treatment regimens for sedation in the ICU for 12 to 72 hours. Patients in the remifentanil/propofol group received remifentanil (6- max. 60 μg kg^-1 h^-1; dose exceeds recommended labelling). Propofol (0.5 to 4.0 mg kg^-1 h^-1) was supplemented only in the case of insufficient sedation at maximal remifentanil dose. Patients in the midazolam/fentanyl group received midazolam (0.02 to 0.2 mg kg^-1 h^-1) and fentanyl (1.0 to 7.0 μg kg^-1 h^-1). For treatment of pain after extubation, both groups received morphine and/or non-opioid analgesics.

Results

The time intervals (mean values ± standard deviation) from arrival at the ICU until extubation (20.7 ± 5.2 hours versus 24.2 h ± 7.0 hours) and from arrival until eligible discharge from the ICU (46.1 ± 22.0 hours versus 62.4 ± 27.2 hours) were significantly (p < 0.05) shorter in the remifentanil/propofol group. Overall costs of the ICU stay per patient were equal (approximately €1,700 on average).

Conclusion

Compared with midazolam/fentanyl, a remifentanil-based regimen for analgesia and sedation supplemented with propofol significantly reduced the time on mechanical ventilation and allowed earlier discharge from the ICU, at equal overall costs.

[Comparison of a propofol-based anesthesia regimen using optimated-target-controlled-infusion (OTCI) and manually-controlled infusion (MCI) technique]

BACKGROUND

Propofol anesthesia based on target-controlled-infusion (TCI) has been shown to be superior to a manually-controlled-infusion (MCI) technique. A new optimal-target-controlled-infusion (OTCI) technique enables an individual plasma-targeted adjustment by including the concentration in the effect-compartment. This study compared practicability and costs of the new system with a conventional MCI-based propofol anesthesia regimen.

METHODS

In a prospective study, 50 patients scheduled for elective surgery of nose or nasal sinuses were randomly enrolled to receive BIS-controlled anaesthesia (level: 40-55) using either OTCI (n = 25) or MCI (n = 25). Hemodynamics, extubation times and time of awaking, rate and quality of propofol adjustment, total drug requirements, costs, postanaesthetic care unit (PACU) stay, Aldrete and pain scores, and adverse effects (postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), shivering) were recorded.

RESULTS

Demographics, hemodynamics, and perioperative data including extubation times were comparable for both study groups. Propofol consumption was similar within the first 60 min for both groups, thereafter, significantly less propofol in the OTCI group (5.03 mg/kg/h) than the MCI group (5.79 mg/kg/h) was used. Costs for propofol was significantly reduced with OTCI (0.2 vs. 0.23 Cent/anaesthesia minute/kg), the administration of other anaesthetics (fentanyl, remifentanil, cis-atracurium) did not differ between the groups. The number of infusion adjustments to BIS values were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

The new OTCI-system is a safe and easily controllable technique. The obvious advantage of this infusion system appears to be a reduction in propofol consumption and direct drug costs for anaesthesia lasting longer than 60 min.

Efficacy and costs of 3 anesthetic regimens in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the antiemetic efficacy and costs associated with 3 different anesthesia regimens used in gynecologic laparoscopy.

DESIGN

This was a randomized, controlled study.

SETTING

The study was conducted at a university hospital.

PATIENTS

We studied 150 ASA physical status I or II patients, undergoing elective gynecologic laparoscopy with general anesthesia.

INTERVENTION

Patients were allocated into the following 3 groups: group P-preoperative placebo tablet, propofol induction, propofol-air/O2 maintenance; group I + O-preoperative 8-mg ondansetron tablet, thiopental induction, isoflurane-N2O maintenance; group I (control)-preoperative placebo tablet, thiopental induction, isoflurane-N2O maintenance.

MEASUREMENTS

The frequency of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), number needed to treat to prevent PONV, and the costs of the anesthetic drugs to prevent PONV in one additional patient were evaluated.

MAIN RESULTS

The frequency of PONV within the 24-hour study period was lowest in group I + O (P, 38%; I + O, 33%; and I, 59%; P < 0.05 I + O vs I). The number needed to treat was 5 in group P and 4 in group I + O, compared with group I. The median costs of anesthetic drugs to prevent PONV in one additional patient were $65 in group P and dollar 68 in group I + O, compared with group I.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that in gynecologic laparoscopy, propofol-air/O2 anesthesia alone, and isoflurane-N2O anesthesia combined with an oral 8-mg dose of ondansetron had similar efficacy and costs to prevent PONV. Isoflurane-N2O anesthesia without ondansetron was less expensive, but was also less efficacious.

Cost minimisation and cost effectiveness in anaesthesia for total hip replacement surgery, in Belgium? A study comparing three general anaesthesia techniques

The aim of the prospective randomised study is to compare the cost effectiveness of three general anaesthesia techniques for total hip replacement surgery and the cost minimisation by use of anaesthetics. For induction propofol was used in the three techniques. For maintenance, we used desflurane, or sevoflurane, or propofol. There was no significant difference in consumption of drugs for pain treatment, treatment of nausea and vomiting or cost of hospital stay or total cost for pharmacy. In terms of cost-effectiveness we can consider that the three techniques are similar. The cost of an i.v. technique was always higher than inhaled anaesthetics. The major cost in anaesthesia is the fee for the anaesthesiologist. But all in, the cost of anaesthesia was only 15.1% of the total cost of the procedure. Cost of inhaled or i.v. anaesthetics was 0.55% to 1.0% of the total cost. There was a discrepancy between the measured consumption of inhaled anaesthetics and the consumption (and cost) on the invoice. Cost minimisation based on anaesthetic medication is ridiculously by small considering the total cost of the procedure.

[Pharmacoeconomical grounds for decision on a basic hypnotic for general anesthesia in surgical interventions]

A comparative pharmacoeconomical analysis of basic hypnotics has been made in 127 patients based on an assessment of quality of anesthesia using standard scales. The data obtained show the use of propofol and a combination propofol-midazolam to be expedient. These medicines give reliably better results than using propofol-H20, sodium thiopental, and a combination of thiopental with droperidol.

[Sedative practice in intensive care units results of a Maghrebian survey]

OBJECTIVES

sedation is central to the management of intensive care patients. The aim of this study was to establish the current sedation practice in Maghrebian intensive care units (ICUs). The use of sedation policies with or without a written protocol, the use of scoring systems, the influence of costs on drug choice, the most common drugs for sedation and the use of neuromuscular blocking agents.

METHODS

a self-administered questionnaire composed of 20 items was sent to 138 intensivists in the Maghreb working in 25 teaching hospitals and 16 private clinics.

RESULTS

50 of 138 questionnaires were returned (response rate = 36.2%). Midazolam and Fentanyl were the main sedative agents used (respectively 98% and 87%) less than 14% of the ICUs used the Propofol mainly in the first 48 hours. A sedation policy was adopted in 63.6% with a written protocol in 20% of cases. Sedation scoring systems were noted in 14.3% of cases (RAMSAY scale in 100%). Economic aspect was important for 64.6% of ICUs.

DISCUSSION

sedation may seem secondary in the initial management of intensive care patients, only 63% of our respondents had a sedation policy and 20% a written protocol though its use is thought to improve outcome and reduce costs. Economic aspect was important for the choice of the drug to use (64%), this may explain the preferential use of Midazolam 98% in association with an analgesic (Fentanyl: 85%) while Propofol is used only in 14% though pharmacoeconomic studies may be in fact in favor of the latter. Neuromuscular blocking agents are less frequently used (16%) mainly because of the risk of complications.

Pharmacoeconomic Modeling of Lorazepam, Midazolam, and Propofol for Continuous Sedation in Critically Ill Patients

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the expected costs of short-, intermediate-, and long-term sedation (< 24, 24-72, and > 72 hrs, respectively) with propofol, lorazepam, and midazolam in an intensive care unit.

METHODS

Decision-analysis models were constructed for each sedative and each duration by using institutional costs associated with drug administration and adverse events (including personnel time). Costs were expressed in 2002 U.S. dollars. Adverse events were agitation, hypertriglyceridemia and/or pancreatitis, hypotension, nutritional changes, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and prolonged awakening and/or extubation. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to obtain durations of sedation, the incidence of outcomes, and cost estimates of outcomes. The ability to maintain specific levels of sedation was assumed equivalent among the sedatives. Univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the cost-driving variables, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted by using second-order Monte Carlo simulations.

RESULTS

Weighted mean durations of sedation from 50 studies were 13.46 (short term), 45.27 (intermediate term), and 119.78 (long term) hours. Expected costs for sedation with lorazepam, midazolam, and propofol, respectively, were 497 dollars, 294 dollars, and 272 dollars short term; 932 dollars, 587 dollars, and 674 dollars intermediate term; and 1604 dollars, 1737 dollars, and 2033 dollars long term. Propofol was least costly in 86% of the short-term simulations, midazolam was least costly in 97.5% of the intermediate-term simulations, and lorazepam was least costly in 84% of the long-term simulations. The most important cost-driver for all sedatives was drug cost. Prolonged extubation after sedation was an important cost-driver for lorazepam and midazolam, especially as sedation was lengthened.

CONCLUSION

Propofol, midazolam, and lorazepam had the lowest expected costs for short-, intermediate-, and long-term sedation, respectively. Many factors aside from drug costs influenced the cost of sedation.

Prevalence of low flow anesthesia and its cost comparison with other anesthesia techniques in an Indian tertiary care center

BACKGROUND

The usage of high fresh gas flows with expensive volatile agents is known to cause substantial economic losses. Practicing low flow anesthesia can minimize these costs. The average costs of different anesthetic techniques, used for maintenance of general anesthesia and the frequency of use of low flows were evaluated.

METHODS

We noted the consumption of anesthetic gases and volatile agents during routine surgeries in our institute for two weeks (10 consecutive full working days). According to the anesthetic agent and fresh gas flow used, all general anesthetics were divided into four groups i.e. low flow (gas flows < or = 1 L/min) and high flow anesthesia (gas flows > 1 L/min) with isoflurane, halothane anesthesia (gas flows > 1 L/min) and propofol intravenous anesthesia (gas flows > 1 L/min). We calculated the individual cost of maintenance of anesthesia on per hour basis for each group based on average flows and anesthetic concentrations used.

RESULTS

Low flow anesthesia is sparingly used in our institution (4.1%). Halothane with fresh gas flow > 1 L/min is the most commonly used anesthetic technique (45.9%). Propofol anesthesia was nearly equal to low flow isoflurane anesthesia in terms of costs. Using higher fresh gas flows with isoflurane increases this cost by three times.

CONCLUSIONS

Low flow anesthesia is still sparingly used. Low flow isoflurane anesthesia is equivalent in terms of costs to propofol anesthesia though more expensive than conventional anesthesia with halothane.

Comparison of propofol/remifentanil and sevoflurane/remifentanil for maintenance of anaesthesia for elective intracranial surgery

BACKGROUND

Propofol and sevoflurane are suitable agents for maintenance of anaesthesia during neurosurgical procedures. We have prospectively compared these agents in combination with the short-acting opioid, remifentanil.

METHODS

Fifty unpremedicated patients undergoing elective craniotomy received remifentanil 1 microg kg(-1) followed by an infusion commencing at 0.5 microg kg(-1) min(-1) reducing to 0.25 microg kg(-1) min(-1) after craniotomy. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol, and maintained with either a target-controlled infusion of propofol, minimum target 2 microg ml(-1) or sevoflurane, initial concentration 2%(ET). Episodes of mean arterial pressure (MAP) more than 100 mm Hg or less than 60 mm Hg for more than 1 min were defined as hypertensive or hypotensive events, respectively. A surgical assessment of operating conditions and times to spontaneous respiration, extubation, obey commands and eye opening were recorded. Drug acquisition costs were calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty-four and twenty-six patients were assigned to propofol (Group P) and sevoflurane anaesthesia (Group S), respectively. The number of hypertensive events was comparable, whilst more hypotensive events were observed in Group S than in Group P (P=0.053, chi-squared test). As rescue therapy, more labetolol [45 (33) vs 76 (58) mg, P=0.073] and ephedrine [4.80 (2.21) vs 9.78 (5.59) mg, P=0.020] were used in Group S. Between group differences in recovery times were small and clinically unimportant. The combined hourly acquisition costs of hypnotic, analgesic, and vasoactive drugs appeared to be lower in patients maintained with sevoflurane than with propofol.

CONCLUSION

Propofol/remifentanil and sevoflurane/remifentanil both provided satisfactory anaesthesia for intracranial surgery.

Comparative Cost-Analysis of a Propofol-Cisatracurium-Based Anesthesia With Remifentanil or Fentanyl for Laparoscopic Surgery

To compare the intraoperative costs of intravenous propofol-based anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, a total of 42 patients were randomly assigned to receive remifentanil or fentanyl as adjuvant using the bispectral index anesthesia monitoring. The average anesthesia calculated costs per hour (and per minute) were 79.45 (1.32) in the fentanyl group and 65.36 (1.09) in the remifentanil group. The calculated mean cost per patient was 76.56 in the fentanyl group and 58.86 in the remifentanil group. In conclusion, for propofol-cisatracurium-based anesthesia for laparoscopic surgery, when applying the bispectral index to guide the administration of hypnotic anesthetic drugs and ensure an adequate and stable depth of anesthesia, the cost of anesthesia is lower using remifentanil as an adjuvant rather than fentanyl. The clinical relevance is that it could be the intravenous anesthesia technique of choice in laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy from a cost-minimization standpoint.

Use of a remifentanil and propofol combination in outpatients to facilitate rapid discharge home

The goal of our study was to evaluate whether the combination of remifentanil and propofol facilitated shorter recovery time and decreased charges compared with conventional balanced anesthesia. We studied 49 patients, aged 13 to 75 years, who underwent elective outpatient surgery. All data were analyzed using the Pearson chi2 and the Student t test; results were considered statistically significant at a P value of.05 or less. Group 1 received a remifentanil-propofol combination and group 2, a conventional balanced anesthetic. Group 1 had decreased mean operating room (dollar 280.83 vs dollar 337.42; P = .05) and operating room plus postanesthesia care unit (PACU) (dollar 442.67 vs dollar 544.62) charges (P = .02). Group 1 had less PACU time (48.26 vs 59.62 minutes) and 2 group 1 patients bypassed the PACU. We conclude that a remifentanil-propofol combination is more cost effective than conventional balanced anesthetics and enables some patients to bypass the PACU, resulting in quicker discharge. Our findings have important implications for ambulatory surgery centers and office-based practices.

Laryngeal mask airway can be inserted with inhaled desflurane induction

PURPOSE

In this prospective, randomized, controlled trial, we investigated the reliability of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion with inhaled desflurane.

METHODS

Eighty patients undergoing elective surgery were randomized into two groups to receive either 2.5 mg x kg(-1) propofol (n = 40) or tidal breath desflurane (n = 40) induction followed by LMA insertion. All patients received fentanyl 1 microg x kg(-1) 2 min before induction. Inhalation of desflurane was started at 3% and increased by 3% every 3-5 breaths up to settings of 12%.

RESULTS

Insertion of the LMA was faster in the propofol group (131.8 s versus 228.6 s, P < 0.01). The number of patients in whom the jaw opening was described as good (95% versus 72.5%, P = 0.27, for the desflurane and propofol groups, respectively) and the ease of LMA insertion described as good (87.5% versus 72.5%, P = 0.6) were comparable. The LMA was inserted in a single attempt in the majority of patients in both groups (80% versus 77.5%, P = 0.90). There were more complications at insertion in the propofol group than in the desflurane group (2.5% versus 19.5%, P < 0.01), especially for apnea (7.5% versus 70%, P < 0.01) and excitatory movements (2.5% versus 25%, P < 0.01). There were significant decreases in the mean arterial pressure in the propofol group compared to baseline data over the first 5 min of induction. Mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and S(p)(O2) remained stable during the same period in the desflurane group.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that inhaled desflurane when used with caution in a controlled manner provided acceptable conditions for LMA insertion.

The efficiency of different adjunct techniques for regional anesthesia

In the present prospective, randomized controlled trial, 110 unpremedicated patients undergoing orthopedic surgery under regional anesthesia were randomly divided into 5 groups, with 22 patients in each. During the operation, group 1 listened to a pre-recorded explanation and music, group 2 listened to a subliminal sound, group 3 received propofol by patient-controlled sedation (PCS), group 4 received intravenous midazolam, and group 5 was the control group. Patients in the midazolam group were significantly more sedated than the control group at 1 hr into the operation. The group that listened to an explanation and music were significantly less satisfied than the propofol group at the end of the operation and 30 min. postoperatively. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio showed that if explanation and music are used instead of propofol it would save 299.53 baht per patient, but the patient satisfaction score will be 17.26 points lower than if the more expensive drug is used.

A prospective audit of cost of sedation, analgesia and neuromuscular blockade in a large British ICU

Bottom-up costs of sedative, analgesic and neuromuscular blocking drugs used in the intensive care unit have not been reported. We performed a prospective audit of the cost of these drugs using a bottom-up approach by prospectively recording the daily amount of drugs administered to patients over a 3-month period. Of 172 admissions, complete data were collected for 155 (92%). Propofol and alfentanil were the drugs most commonly used, being administered to 136 (88%) and 106 (68%) patients, respectively. The total cost was 14,070 pounds sterling, which was 81% of the pharmacy figure (based on central purchasing). Ninety-four per cent of the cost was for drugs administered to the 50% of patients who stayed in the intensive care unit longer than 48 h. The median (interquartile range [range]) cost per day was 9.30 pounds sterling (3.60-20.10 [0-61.20]). This represents less than 1% of reported total daily cost of intensive care per patient.

Induction with sevoflurane-remifentanil is comparable to propofol-fentanyl-rocuronium in PONV after laparoscopic surgery

PURPOSE

To compare sevoflurane-remifentanil induction and propofol-fentanyl-rocuronium induction with regards to the frequency of moderate to severe postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in the first 24 hr after laparoscopic day surgery.

METHODS

After informed consent, 156 ASA physical status class I to III patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy or tubal ligation were randomized to either induction with sevoflurane 8%, N(2)O 67% and iv remifentanil 1 to 1.5 microg.kg(-1) or induction with iv fentanyl 2 to 3 microg.kg(-1), propofol 2 mg.kg(-1), and rocuronium 0.3 to 0.5 mg.kg(-1). All patients received iv ketorolac 0.5 mg.kg(-1) at induction and sevoflurane-N(2)O maintenance anesthesia with rocuronium as needed. PONV was treated with iv ondansetron, droperidol, or dimenhydrinate; postoperative pain was treated with opioid analgesics. Patients were followed for 24 hr with regards to PONV and pain. Intubating conditions, induction and emergence times, time to achieve fast-track discharge criteria, and drug costs were measured.

RESULTS

No differences were seen between the two groups in their frequencies of 24-hr moderate to severe PONV and postoperative pain, or in their intubating conditions, induction and emergence times, and time to achieve fast-track discharge criteria. Patients undergoing sevoflurane-remifentanil induction received more morphine (11 mg vs 8 mg; P < 0.001) in the postanesthetic care unit. Sevoflurane-remifentanil induction resulted in similar anesthetic and total drug costs for both procedures.

CONCLUSION

We did not demonstrate any difference in PONV, pain, or anesthetic/recovery times or costs between the sevoflurane and propofol groups. Sevoflurane-remifentanil induction is a feasible technique for anesthetic induction.

Cost-effectiveness and high patient satisfaction in the elderly: sevoflurane versus propofol anaesthesia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The use of propofol compared with isoflurane is associated with improved patient comfort and decreased costs. However, as the cost saving, the quicker recovery time and patient comfort may not be evident if sevoflurane is substituted for isoflurane; these two anaesthetic agents were analysed in elderly patients.

METHODS

In a prospective randomized study, 96 patients undergoing elective ophthalmic surgery received either total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol (Group P), propofol for induction and sevoflurane for maintenance (Group P/S) or sevoflurane for inhalation induction and maintenance (Group S). Analyses focussed on haemodynamics, the quality of recovery, and the costs for the anaesthetic and the entire procedure.

RESULTS

Bradycardia or hypotension, mainly registered in Groups P and P/S, did not influence patients' recovery. In Group S, postoperative nausea and vomiting occurred frequently, and 50% of patients complained of discomfort during induction. In Group P/S, the costs for anaesthetics and total costs were lower than those in Groups P and S.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol- and sevoflurane-based maintenance of anaesthesia were similar with regard to patient comfort and recovery in the elderly. Cost analysis revealed that it was less expensive to use propofol for induction and sevoflurane for maintenance than to use either propofol or sevoflurane as sole agents for anaesthesia.

Fast-track eligibility, costs and quality of recovery after intravenous anaesthesia with propofol-remifentanil versus balanced anaesthesia with isoflurane-alfentanil

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The randomized, patient- and observer-blinded study was performed in 120 patients undergoing ear, nose and throat surgery to test the hypothesis that intravenous anaesthesia with propofol-remifentanil when compared with a balanced anaesthesia technique using isoflurane-alfentanil improves the speed of recovery, minimizes postoperative side-effects and, thus, leads to an improved quality of recovery without increasing total costs.

METHODS

The total costs for each anaesthesia technique were calculated considering drug acquisition costs, personnel costs for the additional time spent in the operating room and the postanaesthesia care unit until fast-tracking eligibility, and the costs to treat the side-effects during and after operation.

RESULTS

The times from the end of surgery to tracheal extubation and the time until leaving the operating room were not different between the two groups. However, more patients receiving intravenous anaesthesia (80 versus 49%) were eligible for fast tracking and thus could bypass the recovery room. This was associated with an average cost saving of 6.00 euros per patient. However, intravenous anaesthesia was associated with higher total costs (89 euros versus 78 euros) mainly because of higher acquisition costs of the anaesthetics (34.60 euros versus 16.50 euros). There was no difference in the quality of recovery as measured by a Quality of Recovery score and patient satisfaction between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The higher acquisition costs of the intravenous anaesthetics propofol and remifentanil cannot be compensated for by improved speed of recovery. This anaesthesia technique is more cost intensive than balanced anaesthesia using isoflurane and alfentanil.

The dawning of a new sedative: propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Using gentler endoscopes and improved sedation, great strides have been made in enhancing patients' comfort and acceptance of endoscopic procedures. Because morbidity and mortality have been associated with benzodiazepines in endoscopic sedation, safer alternatives were sought. Propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol), a rapid and short-acting anesthetic, initially used in the 1980's for general anesthesia induction and maintenance, is a promising candidate.

METHODS

This review article examines experiences and literature references of propofol's use in endoscopic procedures. Three critical questions are posed: What are the major advantages and potential risks of propofol? When should propofol be used? Who should administer propofol, how should it be administered, and what type of monitoring is required?

RESULTS

With considerable inter-patient variability, the propofol dose must be carefully titrated according to the individual patient's response. Factors influencing dosage include age, ASA class, patient's height and procedure duration. Propofol's primary risk is its narrow therapeutic range which necessitates careful patient monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol's advantages over benzodiazepines and narcotics include a more rapid onset of action, full relief of discomfort and rapid recovery to alertness without residual sedative effects or anterograde amnesia, thereby making this drug a cost-effective and, with proper monitoring, safe choice.

[Total intravenous anesthesia. On the way to standard practice in pediatrics]

Since venous cannulation in children has become easier and extensive experience has been gained with total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) in adults, the interest in TIVA for children has recently increased. An intensified sensitivity of the operating room atmosphere to contamination with volatile anaesthetic agents is another important reason to choose intravenous techniques for paediatric anaesthesia. One of the most interesting agents for TIVA in paediatric anaesthesia is propofol. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data for modern intravenous drugs is poor. Because the interpatient variability is relatively large, pharmacokinetic data can only provide guidelines for the dosage of propofol. Propofol has a rapid and smooth onset of action and is as easy to titrate in children as in adults. Propofol can be excellently controlled. Severe haemodynamic side-effects are missing in healthy children and plasma is cleared rapidly of propofol by redistribution and metabolism. There is no evidence of significant accumulation, not even after prolonged infusion times. Because propofol has no analgetic properties it must be combined with analgetics or a regional block for all painful procedures. The combination with the ultra-short acting remifentanil is a major advantage, but requires effective analgetic concepts for painful procedures. In comparison the combination of propofol with long acting opioids abolishes some of the favourable properties of propofol. Further studies of the kinetics and dynamics of propofol and other intravenous agents are needed in paediatrics which should focus on age, maturity and severity of illness. The whole importance of the propofol-infusion syndrome has to be cleared up urgently. TIVA has an important significance in paediatric anaesthesia for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, especially where these have to be repeated. In day-case anaesthesia TIVA has advantages for all short procedures and for ENT and ophthalmic surgery: even after prolonged infusion children have an short recovery time. There is no evidence of agitation or other behavioural disorders after TIVA with propofol in paediatric anaesthesia. Propofol has anti-emetic properties. TIVA with propofol can be combined with regional anaesthesia advantageously to provide long-lasting analgesia after surgery. TIVA with propofol has been used successfully for sedation of spontaneously breathing children for MRI and CT and other procedures with open airways like bronchoscopy or endoscopy. Propofol facilitates endotracheal intubation without the use of muscle relaxants. Of course, in malignant hyperthermia TIVA will continue to be the technique of choice. Nothing is known about awareness under TIVA in paediatric patients. TIVA must be considered by comparison with the volatile agents. The use of ultra-short acting agents may cause problems such as awareness, vagal response, involuntary movements and in some cases slow recovery after prolonged infusion of propofol. But it is not known exactly how often this happens during paediatric anaesthesia. With TIVA an effective postoperative analgesia must be provided. Newer administration techniques such as the target-controlled infusions or closed-loop control systems are under development and will help to minimise the potential risk of overdosage with TIVA in paediatrics. At the present TIVA is an interesting and practicable alternative to volatile anaesthesia for pre-school and school children. TIVA with propofol in infants younger than 1 year old requires extensive experience with TIVA in older children and with the handling of this special age group and should be undertaken with maximum precautionary measures.

Narcotrend monitoring allows faster emergence and a reduction of drug consumption in propofol-remifentanil anesthesia

BACKGROUND

The Narcotrend is a new electroencephalographic monitor designed to measure depth of anesthesia, based on a six-letter classification from A (awake) to F (increasing burst suppression) including 14 substages. This study was designed to investigate the impact of Narcotrend monitoring on recovery times and propofol consumption in comparison to Bispectral Index (BIS) monitoring or standard anesthetic practice.

METHODS

With institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 120 adult patients scheduled to undergo minor orthopedic surgery were randomized to receive a propofol-remifentanil anesthetic controlled by Narcotrend, by BIS(R), or solely by clinical parameters. Anesthesia was induced with 0.4 micro x kg-1 x min-1 remifentanil and a propofol target-controlled infusion at 3.5 microg/ml. After intubation, remifentanil was reduced to 0.2 micro x kg-1 x min-1, whereas the propofol infusion was adjusted according to clinical parameters or to the following target values: during maintenance to D(0) (Narcotrend) or 50 (BIS); 15 min before the end of surgery to C(1) (Narcotrend) or 60 (BIS). Recovery times were recorded by a blinded investigator, and average normalized propofol consumption was calculated from induction and maintenance doses.

RESULTS

The groups were comparable for demographic data, duration of anesthesia, and mean remifentanil dosages. Compared with standard practice, patients with Narcotrend or BIS monitoring needed significantly less propofol (standard practice, 6.8 +/- 1.2 mg x kg-1 x h-1 vs. Narcotrend, 4.5 +/- 1.1 mg x kg-1 x h-1 or BIS(R), 4.8 +/- 1.0 mg x kg-1 x h-1; P < 0.001), opened their eyes earlier (9.3 +/- 5.2 vs. 3.4 +/- 2.2 or 3.5 +/- 2.9 min), and were extubated sooner (9.7 +/- 5.3 vs. 3.7 +/- 2.2 or 4.1 +/- 2.9 min).

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that Narcotrend and BIS monitoring are equally effective to facilitate a significant reduction of recovery times and propofol consumption when used for guidance of propofol titration during a propofol-remifentanil anesthetic.

Clinical and economic choices in anaesthesia for day surgery: a prospective randomised controlled trial

We compared the cost-effectiveness of general anaesthetic agents in adult and paediatric day surgery populations. We randomly assigned 1063 adult and 322 paediatric elective patients to one of four (adult) or two (paediatric) anaesthesia groups. Total costs were calculated from individual patient resource use to 7 days post discharge. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed as cost per episode of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) avoided. In adults, variable secondary care costs were higher for propofol induction and propofol maintenance (propofol/propofol; p < 0.01) than other groups and lower in propofol induction and isoflurane maintenance (propofol/isoflurane; p < 0.01). In both studies, predischarge PONV was higher if sevoflurane/sevoflurane (p < 0.01) was used compared with use of propofol for induction. In both studies, there was no difference in postdischarge outcomes at Day 7. Sevoflurane/sevoflurane was more costly with higher PONV rates in both studies. In adults, the cost per extra episode of PONV avoided was pound 296 (propofol/propofol vs. propofol/ sevoflurane) and pound 333 (propofol/sevoflurane vs. propofol/isoflurane).

Propofol: a review of its use in intensive care sedation of adults

Propofol (Diprivan) is a phenolic derivative with sedative and hypnotic properties but is unrelated to other sedative/hypnotic agents. Formulated as an oil-in-water emulsion for intravenous use, it is highly lipophilic and rapidly crosses the blood-brain barrier resulting in a rapid onset of action. Emergence from sedation is also rapid because of a fast redistribution into peripheral tissues and metabolic clearance. The depth of sedation increases in a dose-dependent manner. In well designed clinical trials in patients receiving sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU) for a variety of indications, propofol provided adequate sedation for a similar proportion of time to midazolam, but the rate of recovery was faster with propofol. Even after periods of prolonged sedation (>72 hours), propofol was generally associated with a faster time to recovery than midazolam. Propofol facilitated better predictability of recovery and an improved control of the depth of sedation in response to titration than midazolam. In patients sedated following head trauma, propofol reduced or maintained intracranial pressure. Propofol is associated with generally good haemodynamic stability but induces a dose-dependent decrease in blood pressure and heart rate. Bolus administration may cause transient hypotension, and slow initial infusions are recommended in most patients. Serum triglyceride concentrations should be monitored during prolonged infusions (>3 days) because of the risk of hypertriglyceridaemia. The administration of 2% propofol can reduce this risk. Strict aseptic technique must be used during the handling of the product to prevent accidental extrinsic microbial contamination. Despite a higher acquisition cost with propofol, most studies of short-term sedation (approximately <3 days) showed that overall costs were lower with propofol than with midazolam, because a faster time to extubation reduced total ICU costs. However, as the period of sedation increased, the cost difference decreased.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of propofol in the sedation of adults in the ICU is well established, and clinical trials have demonstrated a similar quality of sedation to midazolam. Because of a rapid distribution and clearance, the duration of action of propofol is short and recovery is rapid. Emergence from sedation is more rapid with propofol than with midazolam, even after long-term administration (>72 hours), which enables better control of the depth of sedation in response to titration and more predictable recovery times. Thus, for the ICU sedation of adults in a variety of clinical settings, propofol provides effective sedation with a more rapid and predictable emergence time than midazolam.

[Remifentanil and eye surgery. A randomized, clinical comparison of propofol/remifentanil anesthesia and propofol/fentanyl/alfentanil anesthesia]

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to investigate how many patients, after anesthesia with either propofol/remifentanil or propofol/fentanyl/alfentanil, within 20 minutes from the end of surgery could be transferred directly to the general ward. The number of undesired preoperative incidents, the anesthetists', the surgeons', and the patients' evaluations of the anesthesia were registered. An evaluation of the economic consequences of the two methods was also intended.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was clinically controlled, randomised, and partly blinded. A total of 80 patients undergoing eye surgery were recruited. The patients were scored 10, 15, and 20 minutes after the end of surgery according to a modified Aldrete score. With sufficient awakening score, the patients were transferred to the general ward.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients in each group underwent the examination. In the propofol/remifentanil-group 31 (86%) could be transferred to the general ward compared to 15 (42%) in the proponol/fentanyl/alfentanil-group. In the propofol/remifentanil-group there were less reactions to the start of surgery, more episodes with preoperative hypotension and postoperative shivering. Otherwise there were no differences between the groups. It was estimated that the additional expenses for medcine were by far outweighed by the lower costs postoperatively.

DISCUSSION

With a propofol/remifentanil-anesthesia, the patients had a predictably short awakening time, so they could be transferred directly to the general ward. This may, especially in ambulatory surgery, mean cost savings and perhaps higher patient satisfaction.

Prospective, randomized cost analysis of anesthesia with remifentanil combined with propofol, desflurane or sevoflurane for otorhinolaryngeal surgery

BACKGROUND

In the era of cost containment, cost analysis should demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of new anesthetic drugs.

METHODS

This single-blind, prospective, randomized study compared the costs of three remifentanil (REM)-based anesthetic techniques with a conventional one in 120 patients undergoing otorhinolaryngeal surgery. The patients were randomized (n=30 each group) to either receive a combination of REM with propofol, desflurane or sevoflurane, or a conventional anesthetic with thiopentone, alfentanil, isoflurane and N2O.

RESULTS

The costs for anesthetic and nonanesthetic drugs and for disposables were twice as high in the three REM-based groups as in the conventional group (REM/PRO 0.51 Euro;/min, REM/DES 0.42 Euro;/min, and REM/SEVO 0.41 Euro;/min vs. 0.18 Euro;/min in the ALF/ISO/N2O group; P<0.05). Wastage of intravenous drugs accounted for up to 40% of total costs. In all REM groups, early recovery was predictably faster and more complete (P<0.05). Patient satisfaction was equally high (90-97%) in all groups, with less nausea in the REM/PRO group.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that REM-based anesthetic techniques are more expensive than a conventional technique using alfentanil, isoflurane and N2O. This is the result of higher costs of anesthetic and nonanesthetic drugs and of disposables. The wastage of intravenous drugs contributes considerably to these costs.

Cost-reduction analysis of propofol versus sevoflurane: maintenance of anaesthesia for gynaecological surgery using the bispectral index

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The study was designed to compare the costs of propofol versus sevoflurane for the maintenance of the hypnotic component of anaesthesia during general anaesthesia, guided by the bispectral index, for gynaecological laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

Forty ASA Grade I-II female patients scheduled for gynaecological laparoscopy were randomly allocated to two groups. All patients received a continuous infusion of remifentanil (0.25 microg kg(-1) min(-1)) for 2 min. Then anaesthesia was induced with propofol 1% at 300 mL h(-1) until loss of consciousness. To guide the bispectral index between 40 and 60, Group 1 patients received propofol 10 mg kg(-1) h(-1) initially, which was increased or decreased by 2 mg kg(-1) h(-1) steps; Group 2 patients received sevoflurane, initially set at 2 vol.% and adjusted with steps of 0.2-0.4%. The time and quality of anaesthesia and recovery were assessed in two postoperative standardized interviews.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics, the propofol induction dose, the bispectral index and the haemodynamic profiles during induction of anaesthesia, and its duration, were similar between the groups. In Group 1, 7.55 +/- 1.75 mg kg(-1) h(-1) propofol and in Group 2, 0.20 +/- 0.09 mL kg(-1) h(-1) liquid sevoflurane were used for maintenance. The cost for maintenance, including wasted drugs, was higher when using propofol (Euro 25.14 +/- 10.69) than sevoflurane (Euro 12.80 +/- 2.67). Postoperatively, recovery profiles tended to be better with propofol; however, the day after discharge no differences were found.

CONCLUSIONS

When applying the bispectral index to guide the administration of hypnotic anaesthetic drugs, propofol-based maintenance of anaesthesia was associated with the highest cost. A trend towards a better recovery profile was obtained with propofol. However, on the day after discharge, no differences in quality were observed.

Bispectral index in patients with target-controlled or manually-controlled infusion of propofol

In this prospective, randomized study we compared bispectral index (BIS), hemodynamics, time to extubation, and the costs of target-controlled infusion (TCI) and manually-controlled infusion (MCI) of propofol. Forty patients undergoing first-time implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator were included. Anesthesia was performed with remifentanil (0.2-0.3 micro g. kg(-1). min(-1)) and propofol. Propofol was used as TCI (plasma target concentration, 2.5-3.5 micro g/mL; n = 20) or MCI (3.0-4.0 mg. kg(-1). h(-1); n = 20). BIS, heart rate, and arterial blood pressure were measured at six data points: T1, before anesthesia; T2, after intubation; T3, after skin incision; T4, after first defibrillation; T5, after third defibrillation; and T6, after extubation. There were no significant hemodynamic differences between the two groups. BIS was significantly lower at T3 and T4 in the TCI group than in the MCI group. The mean dose of propofol was larger in TCI patients (5.8 +/- 1.4 mg. kg(-1). h(-1)) than in the MCI patients (3.7 +/- 0.6 mg. kg(-1). h(-1)) (P < 0.05), whereas doses of remifentanil did not differ. Time to extubation did not differ between the two groups (TCI, 13.7 +/- 5.3 min; MCI, 12.3 +/- 3.5 min). One patient in the MCI group had signs of intraoperative awareness without explicit memory after first defibrillation (BIS before shock, 49; after shock, 83). Costs were significantly less in the MCI group (34.83 US dollars) than in the TCI group (39.73 US dollars). BIS failed to predict the adequacy of anesthesia for the next painful stimulus.

IMPLICATIONS

In this prospective, randomized study, bispectral index (BIS), hemodynamics, time to extubation, and costs of target-controlled infusion (TCI) and manually-controlled infusion of propofol were compared. TCI increased the amount of propofol used. BIS failed to predict the adequacy of anesthesia for the next painful stimulus.

Cost-effectiveness of propofol anesthesia using target-controlled infusion compared with a standard regimen using desflurane

The cost-effectiveness of propofol anesthesia using target-controlled infusion (TCI) versus a standard regimen using desflurane for anesthesia maintenance was analyzed. This observational study consisted of 100 inpatients 18 to 75 years old with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I or II who were scheduled for otological surgery lasting less than four hours. Patients received one of two treatments. The desflurane-maintenance group received propofol 2-4 mg/kg and sufentanil 0.15-0.30 microg (as the citrate)/kg. A constant fresh gas flow of 1 L/min was used during maintenance of anesthesia. The propofol-maintenance group received TCI propofol and an additional infusion of sufentanil. Anesthesia was induced with 0.15-0.30 microg/kg. One blinded evaluator assessed the postoperative recovery from anesthesia for all patients. The cost of drugs and medical devices used during the intraoperative and postoperative periods was calculated. Effectiveness was defined as the absence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), while the cost-effectiveness of each procedure was the cost per PONV-free episode. The efficiency of each procedure represented the production of effectiveness per dollar invested. Chi-square and t tests, sensitivity analysis, and logistic regression were also performed. The only intergroup difference detected was the frequency of PONV occurring in the early recovery phase (11 in the desflurane group versus 2 in the propofol group). Of those patients requiring antiemetic rescue, 9 were in the desflurane group and only 2 were in the propofol group (p < 0.05). The TCI propofol regimen was more expensive than the desflurane regimen ($45 versus $28 per patient, respectively) (p < 0.001). The differential cost-effectiveness ratio was $94.7 per PONV-free episode. PONV 24 hours after surgery and patient satisfaction were similar between groups. A standard regimen of desflurane was more cost-effective than TCI propofol for anesthesia maintenance in achieving PONV-free episodes.

Gastroenterologist-administered propofol versus meperidine and midazolam for advanced upper endoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Propofol is increasingly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy because of its rapid recovery profile. There has been no prospective, randomized comparison of gastroenterologist-administered propofol to meperidine and midazolam for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasonography. Additionally, its cost-effectiveness has not been studied.

METHODS

Seventy-five randomized patients received either gastroenterologist-administered propofol (n = 38) or meperidine/midazolam (n = 37) for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasonography. Monitoring with capnography allowed for rapid titration of propofol at the earliest signs of respiratory depression. Visual analogue scales measured tolerance and satisfaction. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed by using return to baseline for both activity and food intake 24 hours after the procedure as the effectiveness measure.

RESULTS

The groups had similar physiological outcomes and satisfaction. Patients receiving propofol had shorter recovery times (P < 0.001) and a higher recovery of both baseline activity level and dietary intake 24 hours after the procedure (P = 0.028). With incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, gastroenterologist-administered propofol cost an additional $403.00 per additional patient at 100% of baseline for both activity level and food intake when compared with standard sedation and analgesia. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the only model in which propofol administration would become the dominant strategy was with its administration by a registered nurse.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastroenterologist-administered propofol using monitoring with capnography is similar to meperidine/midazolam for both physiological outcomes and patient/endoscopist satisfaction. Propofol leads to significantly improved recovery of baseline activity and food intake 24 hours after the procedure. Our model suggests that propofol would be more cost-effective than meperidine and midazolam for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasonography if registered nurse administration were possible.

[Pharmacoeconomical model for cost calculation using a study on prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting in the postoperative phase as an example. Cost effectiveness analysis of a tropisetron supplemented desflurane anaesthesia in comparison to a propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA)]

AIM OF THE STUDY

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are among the most frequent complications after general anaesthesia. Avoiding these symptoms is of utmost importance for most patients; PONV is not only a major source of discomfort for patients but also a cause of additional costs for the patients and the health care provider. The economical impact of PONV will become even more important in the near future because the number of surgical procedures performed on an ambulatory basis is increasing. The following article gives a short overview of the terminology and measures used in pharmacoeconomical studies concerning PONV. Furthermore the economical aspects of a low-flow anaesthesia supplemented with the 5-HT(3)-antagonist tropisetron compared with a total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) using propofol are described.

METHODS

For this comparison a decision analysis was performed using data of a randomised control trial on 150 female patients undergoing major gynaecological surgery. The patients were randomised to receive a total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol-alfentanil or a balanced anaesthesia with desfluran (fresh gas flow 1 l.min(-1)) supplemented by 2 mg tropisetron at the end of surgery.

RESULTS

Indirect costs associated with anaesthesia using desflurane-tropisetron (4.94 Euro) are not different from that of propofol-TIVA (4.81 Euro) because of a similar incidence of PONV in the PACU. Furthermore, the total cost for 100 min general anaesthesia is higher in the desflurane-tropisetron group (30.94 Euro) compared with the TIVA group (24.55 Euro) due to the decreasing acquisition costs of propofol in the last 2 years.

CONCLUSION

Total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol is more cost-efficient than balanced anaesthesia with desflurane and additional tropisetron as a prophylactic antiemetic.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Cost consciousness has become increasingly important in anaesthesia as elsewhere in healthcare. Cost-minimization with uncompromised patient safety and quality requires systematic comparisons of alternative techniques. Inhalation anaesthesia with desflurane or sevoflurane is compared in this study with propofol delivered by the target controlled infusion technique. Directly measured drug consumption and costs and emergence times are compared.

METHODS

Consumed anaesthetics were measured during elective arthroscopy of the knee, and costs were calculated for ASA I-II patients (n = 102) randomized to 3 groups: one group received anaesthesia using propofol administered by target controlled infusion, the others inhalation anaesthesia with either desflurane or sevoflurane in combination with nitrous oxide. A partial rebreathing system was used with a laryngeal mask airway. Vaporizers were weighed before and after each anaesthetic.

RESULTS

Anaesthetic duration, postoperative pain and emesis as well as discharge time did not differ between groups. Inhaled anaesthetic techniques with desflurane or sevoflurane were associated with 2-3 min shorter emergence times (P < 0.001) and approximately 45% lower cost for consumed anaesthetics as compared with a propofol technique based on target controlled infusion. The inclusion of waste costs improved the cost reduction to 55%.

CONCLUSIONS

For this patient group, use of inhalation anaesthesia reduced drug costs by half and shortened emergence times compared to target controlled infusion with propofol with equal perioperative patient conditions.

Economic evaluation of propofol for sedation of patients admitted to intensive care units

BACKGROUND

The goal of the current study was to evaluate the economic impact of propofol as compared with midazolam for sedating patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

A randomized, unblinded, multicenter pharmacoeconomic trial captured health resource utilization and outcome measurements associated with sedation and treatment of patients in four ICUs across Canada. Statistical analysis was performed to investigate the difference in sedation quality, ICU length of stay, and other health resources used. The authors compared the costs (1997 Canadian dollars) associated with the two treatments. Two types of sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Although overall sedation duration was similar, propofol patients spent more time at adequately sedated status (60.2% vs. 44%; P = 0.01) and were extubated faster (median extubation time, 2.5 vs. 7.1 h; P = 0.001). The ICU length of stay and health resource utilization did not differ. The total cost per patient, including drug cost and ICU stay cost, did not differ between groups (median, $5,718 for propofol vs. $5,950 for midazolam; P = 0.94). The first sensitivity analysis suggested that the incremental cost (per patient) of propofol varies from an extra cost of $114 to a savings of $2,709. Based on a hypothetical model, the second sensitivity analysis showed a potential saving of $479 per patient as a result of improved discharge planning.

CONCLUSION

The analysis demonstrated that using propofol resulted in a reduction of time to extubation and higher sedative regimen costs. There was no difference in intensity of resource use or ICU length of stay and hence in costs. Issues regarding discharge delay among propofol-treated patients remain to be explored.

Analysis of pharmacoeconomics of sedation and analgesia

Intravenous sedation and analgesia are cornerstones of the pharmacologic management of the critically ill, mechanically ventilated adult patient. No conclusive evidence exists to support any single optimal sedative or analgesic regimen in this heterogeneous population. The role of cost effectiveness in the process of selecting a regimen is explored with a review of the literature, followed by proposed cost-effectiveness models and recommendations for the clinical practitioner.

[A comparison of propofol and midazolam in sedation of mechanically-ventilated postoperative patients]

To compare the quality of sedation using propofol (n = 8) vs midazolam (n = 7) we evaluated their effectiveness, safety, and recovery time after their continuous infusion in patients who required mechanical ventilation after cervical spine surgery. We also calculated the cost of drugs used during the mechanical ventilation. In addition, processed electroencephalogram (pEEG) was monitored employing spectral edge frequency 90 (SEF 90) as an indicator of sedation. Both drugs produced good sedation without any complication. The patients who had received propofol were extubated significantly earlier than those who had received midazolam (P; 35 +/- 18 mins, M; 97 +/- 55 mins). However, the mean drug cost in the propofol group was five times higher than that in the midazolam group (P; yen 15,881 +/- 7,788, M; yen 3,355 +/- 1,187). There was no correlation between the value of SEF 90 and the depth of sedation during mechanical ventilation. In conclusion, propofol exhibited the shorter recovery time after cessation of the continuous infusion than midazolam, but it costed five times compared with midazolam. SEF 90 failed to indicate the depth of sedation during mechanical ventilation.

Inhalation versus total intravenous anesthesia for lumbar disc herniation: comparison of hemodynamic effects, recovery characteristics, and cost

The clinical effects, recovery characteristics, and costs of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA), sevoflurane, and isoflurane anesthesia have been measured in various out-patient operations, but have not been evaluated in patients undergoing laminectomy or discectomy. In the current study, the authors assessed the hemodynamic characteristics, recovery, and cost analyzes after laminectomy and discectomy operations, comparing TIVA, sevoflurane, and isoflurane anesthesia. Sixty American Society of Anesthesiologists I and II patients were randomly divided into three groups, each consisting of 20 patients. Group I received propofol-alfentanil, Group 2 received sevoflurane-N2O, and Group 3 received isoflurane-N2O. At the end of surgery, the anesthetics were discontinued, and recovery from anesthesia was assessed by measuring the time until spontaneous eye opening and the time until response to verbal commands. The drug and delivery costs were calculated in United States dollars. No significant differences were found in the demographic data. Heart rate and mean arterial pressure decreased significantly after induction of anesthesia in the TIVA group, compared to the two other groups ( P < .05 for both comparisons). The fastest recovery was seen in the TIVA group. Incidences of postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pain were significantly reduced after TIVA ( P < .05 for both comparisons). Thus, TIVA patients required fewer additional drugs and showed the lowest additional costs in the post-anesthesia care unit. However, the total cost was significantly higher in the TIVA group than in the sevoflurane and isoflurane groups (52.73 dollars, 29.99 dollars, and 24.14 dollars, respectively) ( P < .05). Total intravenous anesthesia was associated with the highest intraoperative cost but provided the most rapid recovery from anesthesia, and the least frequent postoperative side effects.