Comparison of transversus abdominis plane catheters with thoracic epidurals for cost and length of stay in open colorectal surgeries: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic epidural analgesia has long been a common method of postoperative analgesia for major open abdominal surgeries and is frequently used within enhanced recovery after surgery programs. An alternative postoperative analgesia method is the single shot transversus abdominis plane block, which has shown promising outcomes with respect to total length of stay, cost, pain scores, and decreased opioid usage. However, far less is known regarding continuous transversus abdominis plane analgesia using catheters. We evaluated the total cost-effectiveness of transversus abdominis plane catheter analgesia compared to thoracic epidural analgesia for patients undergoing open colorectal surgeries within the enhanced recovery after surgery program at our institution. METHODS: This cohort study included patients booked under the colorectal surgery enhanced recovery after surgery program from November 2016 through March 2018 who received either bilateral transversus abdominis plane catheters (n = 52) or thoracic epidural analgesia (n = 24). RESULTS: There was no difference in total direct cost (p = 0.660) and indirect cost (p = 0.220), and median length of stay (p = 0.664) in the transversus abdominis plane catheter group compared to the thoracic epidural group. Additionally, the transversus abdominis plane catheter group received significantly less morphine equivalents compared to the thoracic epidural group (p = 0.008) and had a lower mean body mass index (p = 0.019). There was no significant difference between the two groups for age (p = 0.820), or sex (p = 0.330). CONCLUSIONS: Transversus abdominis plane catheter analgesia is not associated with increased cost or longer hospital stays when compared to thoracic epidural analgesia in patients undergoing open colorectal surgery within an enhanced recovery after surgery program. Furthermore, transversus abdominis plane catheter analgesia led to decreased opioid consumption while maintaining similar pain scores, suggesting similar pain control between the two modalities.

Use of perioperative epidural analgesia among Medicare patients undergoing hepatic and pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: We sought to characterize epidural analgesia (EA) use among Medicare patients undergoing hepatopancreatic (HP) procedures, identify factors associated with EA use and asses perioperative outcomes. METHODS: Patients undergoing HP surgery were identified using the Inpatient Standard Analytic Files. Logistic regression was utilized to identify factors associated with EA receipt, and assess associations of EA with in-hospital outcomes and Medicare expenditures. RESULTS: Among 20,562 patients included in the study, 6.7% (n =1362) had EA. There was no difference in the odds of complications (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93-1.19) or blood transfusions (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79-1.03) with EA versus conventional analgesia (CA). The odds of prolonged LOS (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.30) were higher with EA; the odds of in-hospital mortality were higher with conventional analgesia (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.28-2.83). Medicare payments for liver surgery were comparable among EA ($19,500) versus conventional analgesia ($19,300, p = 0.85) and slightly higher for EA ($23,600) versus conventional analgesia ($22,000, p < 0.001) for pancreatic procedures. CONCLUSION: EA utilization among Medicare patients undergoing HP was low. While EA was not associated with morbidity, it resulted in an average additional one day LOS and slightly higher expenditures in pancreatic surgery.

Liposomal Bupivacaine Transversus Abdominis Plane Block Versus Epidural Analgesia in a Colon and Rectal Surgery Enhanced Recovery Pathway: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal pain management is an integral part of enhanced recovery pathways. The most effective pain management strategies have not been determined. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane block with epidural analgesia in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. DESIGN: This is a single-institution, open-label randomized (1:1) trial. SETTING: This study compared liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane block with epidural analgesia in patients undergoing elective open and minimally invasive colorectal surgery in an enhanced recovery pathway. PATIENTS: Two hundred were enrolled. Following randomization, allocation, and follow-up, there were 92 patients with transversus abdominis plane block and 87 patients with epidural analgesia available for analysis. INTERVENTIONS: The interventions comprised liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane block versus epidural analgesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were numeric pain scores and the overall benefit of analgesia scores. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the Numeric Pain Scale and Overall Benefit of Analgesia Score between groups. Time trend analysis revealed that patients with transversus abdominis plane block had higher numeric pain scores on the day of surgery, but that the relationship was reversed later in the postoperative period. Opioid use was significantly less in the transversus abdominis plane block group (206.84 mg vs 98.29 mg, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in time to GI recovery, hospital length of stay, and postoperative complications. Cost was considerably more for the epidural analgesia group. LIMITATIONS: This study was conducted at a single institution. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial shows that perioperative pain management with liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane block is as effective as epidural analgesia and is associated with less opioid use and less cost. These data and the more favorable risk profile suggest that liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane block is a viable multimodal perioperative pain management option for this patient population in an established enhanced recovery pathway. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02591407). See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A737.

Implications of Thoracic Epidural Analgesia on Hospital Charges in Rib Fracture Patients.

Objective: Rib fractures are present in more than 150,000 patients admitted to US trauma centers each year. Those who fracture two or more ribs are typically treated with oral analgesic drugs and are discharged with few complications. The cost of this care generally reflects its brevity. When a patient fractures three or more ribs, there is an elevated risk of complication. In response, treatments are often broadened and their durations prolonged; this affects cost. While health, function, and survival have been widely explored, patient billing has not. Thus, we evaluated the financial implications of one mode of treatment for patients with rib fractures: thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the registry of a level II trauma center. All patients who fractured one or more ribs (n = 1,344) were considered; 382 of those patients were not candidates for epidural placement and were eliminated from analyses. Epidural placement was determined by individual clinicians. We used multiple linear regressions to determine predictors of cost. Results: After eliminating patients who were not eligible to receive TEA, the average patient bill was $59,123 ($10,631 per day of treatment). The administration of TEA predicted a 25% reduction in total billing (99% CI = -$21,429.55- -$7,794.66) and a 24% reduction in per-day billing (99% CI = -$3,745.99- -$1,276.14). Conclusions: Patients who received TEA were more severely injured and required longer treatments; controlling for these variables, the use of TEA associated with reductions in the cost of receiving care. From an administrative and insurance perspective, more frequent reliance on TEA may be indicated.

Epidural Local Anesthetics Versus Opioid-Based Analgesic Regimens for Postoperative Gastrointestinal Paralysis, Vomiting, and Pain After Abdominal Surgery: A Cochrane Review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this review was to compare the effects of postoperative epidural analgesia with local anesthetics to postoperative systemic or epidural opioids in terms of return of gastrointestinal transit, postoperative pain control, postoperative vomiting, incidence of gastrointestinal anastomotic leak, hospital length of stay, and cost after abdominal surgery. METHODS: Trials were identified by computerized searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 12), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) (from 1950 to December, 2014) and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE) (from 1974 to December 2014) and by checking the reference lists of trials retained. We included parallel randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of postoperative epidural local anesthetic with regimens based on systemic or epidural opioids. The quality of the studies was rated according to the Cochrane tool. Two authors independently extracted data. We judged the quality of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) working group scale. RESULTS: Based on 22 trials including 1138 participants, an epidural containing a local anesthetic will decrease the time required for return of gastrointestinal transit as measured by time required to observe the first flatus after an abdominal surgery standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.28 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.71 to -0.86; high quality of evidence; equivalent to 17.5 hours). The effect is proportional to the concentration of local anesthetic used. Based on 28 trials including 1559 participants, we also found a decrease in time to first feces (stool): SMD -0.67 (95% CI, -0.86 to -0.47; low quality of evidence; equivalent to 22 hours). Based on 35 trials including 2731 participants, pain on movement at 24 hours after surgery is also reduced: SMD -0.89 (95% CI, -1.08 to -0.70; moderate quality of evidence; equivalent to 2.5 on a scale from 0 to 10). Based on 22 trials including 1154 participants, we did not find a difference in the incidence of vomiting within 24 hours: risk ratio 0.84 (95% CI, 0.57-1.23); low quality of evidence. Based on 17 trials including 848 participants we did not find a difference in the incidence of gastrointestinal anastomotic leak: risk ratio 0.74 (95% CI, 0.41-1.32; low quality of evidence). Based on 30 trials including 2598 participants, epidural analgesia reduces length of hospital stay for an open surgery: SMD -0.20 (95% CI, -0.35 to -0.04; very low quality of evidence; equivalent to 1 day). Data on cost were very limited. CONCLUSIONS: An epidural containing a local anesthetic, with or without the addition of an opioid, accelerates the return of the gastrointestinal transit (high quality of evidence). An epidural containing a local anesthetic with an opioid decreases pain after an abdominal surgery (moderate quality of evidence). An epidural containing a local anesthetic does not affect the incidence of vomiting or anastomotic leak (low quality of evidence). For an open surgery, an epidural containing a local anesthetic would reduce the length of hospital stay (very low quality of evidence).

Neuraxial blockade for external cephalic version: Cost analysis.

AIM: Neuraxial blockade (epidural or spinal anesthesia/analgesia) with external cephalic version increases the external cephalic version success rate. Hospitals and insurers may affect access to neuraxial blockade for external cephalic version, but the costs to these institutions remain largely unstudied. The objective of this study was to perform a cost analysis of neuraxial blockade use during external cephalic version from hospital and insurance payer perspectives. Secondarily, we estimated the effect of neuraxial blockade on cesarean delivery rates. METHODS: A decision-analysis model was developed using costs and probabilities occurring prenatally through the delivery hospital admission. Model inputs were derived from the literature, national databases, and local supply costs. Univariate and bivariate sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to assess model robustness. RESULTS: Neuraxial blockade was cost saving to both hospitals ($30 per delivery) and insurers ($539 per delivery) using baseline estimates. From both perspectives, however, the model was sensitive to multiple variables. Monte Carlo simulation indicated neuraxial blockade to be more costly in approximately 50% of scenarios. The model demonstrated that routine use of neuraxial blockade during external cephalic version, compared to no neuraxial blockade, prevented 17 cesarean deliveries for every 100 external cephalic versions attempted. CONCLUSIONS: Neuraxial blockade is associated with minimal hospital and insurer cost changes in the setting of external cephalic version, while reducing the cesarean delivery rate.

Pain control for laparoscopic colectomy: an analysis of the incidence and utility of epidural analgesia compared to conventional analgesia.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes between epidural analgesia and conventional intravenous analgesia for patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy. This paper uses a large national database to add a current perspective on trends in analgesia and the outcomes associated with two analgesia options. Our evidence augments the opinions of recent randomized controlled trials. METHODS: The University HealthSystem Consortium, an alliance of more than 300 academic and affiliate institutions, was reviewed for the time period of October 2008 through September 2014. International Classification of Disease 9th Clinical Modification codes for laparoscopic colectomy and epidural catheter placement were used. RESULTS: A total of 29,429 patients met our criteria and underwent laparoscopic colectomy during the study period. One hundred and ten (0.374%) patients had an epidural catheter placed for analgesia. Baseline patient demographics were similar for the epidural and conventional analgesia groups. Total charges were significantly higher in the epidural group ($52,998 vs. $39,277; p < 0.001). Median length of stay was longer in the epidural group (6 vs. 5 days; p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference between the epidural and conventional analgesia groups in death (0 vs. 0.03%; p = 0.999), urinary tract infection (0 vs. 0.1%; p = 0.999), ileus (11.8 vs. 13.6%; p = 0.582), or readmission rate (9.1 vs. 9.3%; p = 0.942). CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional analgesic techniques, epidural analgesia does not reduce the rate of postoperative ileus, and it is associated with increased cost and increased length of stay. Based on our data, routine use of epidural analgesia for laparoscopic colectomy cannot be justified.

Improved peri-operative outcomes with epidural analgesia in patients undergoing a pancreatectomy: a nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: In spite of limited evidence demonstrating a benefit, epidural analgesia (EA) is often used for patients undergoing a pancreatectomy. In the present study, the impact of epidural analgesia on post-operative outcomes after a pancreatectomy is examined. METHODS: Utilizing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, the effect of EA on peri-operative outcomes after a pancreatectomy was examined. Multivariable logistic and linear regression with propensity score matching were utilized for risk adjustment. RESULTS: From 2008-2011, 12,440 patients underwent a pancreatectomy. Of these, 1130 (9.1%) patients received epidural analgesia. Using univariate comparison, patients receiving EA had a significantly decreased length of stay (LOS), hospital charges and post-operative inpatient mortality. In multivariate analyses, EA was independently associated with a decreased post-operative LOS (adjusted mean difference = -1.19 days, P < 0.001), decreased hospital charges (adjusted mean difference = -$16,814, P = 0.002) and decreased post-operative inpatient mortality [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.42, P < 0.001]. Using 1:1 propensity score matching, patients who received an EA (n = 1070) had significantly decreased post-operative LOS (11.0 versus 12.1 days, P = 0.011), lower hospital charges ($112,086 versus $128,939, P = 0.001) and decreased post-operative inpatient mortality (1.5% versus 3.6%, P = 0.002) compared with matched controls without EA (n = 1070). CONCLUSION: Analysis of a large hospital database reveals that EA is associated with improved peri-operative outcomes after a pancreatectomy. Additional studies are required to understand fully if this relationship is causal.

Brief report: a cost analysis of neuraxial anesthesia to facilitate external cephalic version for breech fetal presentation.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we sought to determine whether neuraxial anesthesia to facilitate external cephalic version (ECV) increased delivery costs for breech fetal presentation. METHODS: Using a computer cost model, which considers possible outcomes and probability uncertainties at the same time, we estimated total expected delivery costs for breech presentation managed by a trial of ECV with and without neuraxial anesthesia. RESULTS: From published studies, the average probability of successful ECV with neuraxial anesthesia was 60% (with individual studies ranging from 44% to 87%) compared with 38% (with individual studies ranging from 31% to 58%) without neuraxial anesthesia. The mean expected total delivery costs, including the cost of attempting/performing ECV with anesthesia, equaled $8931 (2.5th-97.5th percentile prediction interval $8541-$9252). The cost was $9207 (2.5th-97.5th percentile prediction interval $8896-$9419) if ECV was attempted/performed without anesthesia. The expected mean incremental difference between the total cost of delivery that includes ECV with anesthesia and ECV without anesthesia was $-276 (2.5th-97.5th percentile prediction interval $-720 to $112). CONCLUSION: The total cost of delivery in women with breech presentation may be decreased (up to $720) or increased (up to $112) if ECV is attempted/performed with neuraxial anesthesia compared with ECV without neuraxial anesthesia. Increased ECV success with neuraxial anesthesia and the subsequent reduction in breech cesarean delivery rate offset the costs of providing anesthesia to facilitate ECV.

Must we press on until a young mother dies? Remifentanil patient controlled analgesia in labour may not be suited as a "poor man's epidural".

BACKGROUND: The epidural route is still considered the gold standard for labour analgesia, although it is not without serious consequences when incorrect placement goes unrecognized, e.g. in case of intravascular, intrathecal and subdural placements. Until now there has not been a viable alternative to epidural analgesia especially in view of the neonatal outcome and the need for respiratory support when long-acting opioids are used via the parenteral route. Pethidine and meptazinol are far from ideal having been described as providing rather sedation than analgesia, affecting the cardiotocograph (CTG), causing fetal acidosis and having active metabolites with prolonged half-lives especially in the neonate. Despite these obvious shortcomings, intramuscular and intravenously administered pethidine and comparable substances are still frequently used in delivery units. Since the end of the 90 ths remifentanil administered in a patient-controlled mode (PCA) had been reported as a useful alternative for labour analgesia in those women who either don't want, can't have or don't need epidural analgesia. DISCUSSION: In view of the need for conversion to central neuraxial blocks and the analgesic effect remifentanil has been demonstrated to be superior to pethidine. Despite being less effective in terms of the resulting pain scores, clinical studies suggest that the satisfaction with analgesia may be comparable to that obtained with epidural analgesia. Owing to this fact, remifentanil has gained a place in modern labour analgesia in many institutions. However, the fact that remifentanil may cause harm should not be forgotten when the use of this potent mu-agonist is considered for the use in labouring women. In the setting of one-to-one midwifery care, appropriate monitoring and providing that enough experience exists with this potent opioid and the treatment of potential complications, remifentanil PCA is a useful option in addition to epidural analgesia and other central neuraxial blocks. Already described serious consequences should remind us not refer to remifentanil PCA as a "poor man's epidural" and to safely administer remifentanil with an appropriate indication. SUMMARY: Therefore, the authors conclude that economic considerations and potential cost-savings in conjunction with remifentanil PCA may not be appropriate main endpoints when studying this valuable method for labour analgesia.

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing epidural, patient-controlled intravenous morphine, and continuous wound infiltration for postoperative pain management after open abdominal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Continuous wound infiltration (CWI), i.v. patient-controlled analgesia (i.v.-PCA), and epidural analgesia (EDA) are analgesic techniques commonly used for pain relief after open abdominal surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these techniques. METHODS: A decision analytic model was developed, including values retrieved from clinical trials and from an observational prospective cohort of 85 patients. Efficacy criteria were based on pain at rest (VAS ≤ 30/100 mm at 24 h). Resource use and costs were evaluated from medical record measurements and published data. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed. RESULTS: When taking into account all resources consumed, the CWI arm (€ 6460) is economically dominant when compared with i.v.-PCA (€ 7273) and EDA (€ 7500). The proportion of patients successfully controlled for their postoperative pain management are 77.4%, 53.9%, and 72.9% for CWI, i.v.-PCA, and EDA, respectively, demonstrating the CWI procedure to be both economically and clinically dominant. PSA reported that CWI remains cost saving in 70.4% of cases in comparison with EDA and in 59.2% of cases when compared with PCA. CONCLUSIONS: Device-related costs of using CWI for pain management after abdominal laparotomy are partly counterbalanced by a reduction in resource consumption. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that CWI is the dominant treatment strategy for managing postoperative pain (i.e. more effective and less costly) in comparison with i.v.-PCA. When compared with EDA, CWI is less costly with almost equivalent efficacy. This economic evaluation may be useful for clinicians to design algorithms for pain management after major abdominal surgery.

Remifentanil patient controlled analgesia versus epidural analgesia in labour. A multicentre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain relief during labour is a topic of major interest in the Netherlands. Epidural analgesia is considered to be the most effective method of pain relief and recommended as first choice. However its uptake by pregnant women is limited compared to other western countries, partly as a result of non-availability due to logistic problems. Remifentanil, a synthetic opioid, is very suitable for patient controlled analgesia. Recent studies show that epidural analgesia is superior to remifentanil patient controlled analgesia in terms of pain intensity score; however there was no difference in satisfaction with pain relief between both treatments. METHODS/DESIGN: The proposed study is a multicentre randomized controlled study that assesses the cost-effectiveness of remifentanil patient controlled analgesia compared to epidural analgesia. We hypothesize that remifentanil patient controlled analgesia is as effective in improving pain appreciation scores as epidural analgesia, with lower costs and easier achievement of 24 hours availability of pain relief for women in labour and efficient pain relief for those with a contraindication for epidural analgesia.Eligible women will be informed about the study and randomized before active labour has started. Women will be randomly allocated to a strategy based on epidural analgesia or on remifentanil patient controlled analgesia when they request pain relief during labour. Primary outcome is the pain appreciation score, i.e. satisfaction with pain relief.Secondary outcome parameters are costs, patient satisfaction, pain scores (pain-intensity), mode of delivery and maternal and neonatal side effects.The economic analysis will be performed from a short-term healthcare perspective. For both strategies the cost of perinatal care for mother and child, starting at the onset of labour and ending ten days after delivery, will be registered and compared. DISCUSSION: This study, considering cost effectiveness of remifentanil as first choice analgesia versus epidural analgesia, could strongly improve the care for 180.000 women, giving birth in the Netherlands yearly by giving them access to pain relief during labour, 24 hours a day. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register NTR2551, http://www.trialregister.nl.

The beneficial effects of preperitoneal catheter analgesia following colon and rectal resections: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Preperitoneal catheter analgesia following abdominal surgery has attracted interest in the last decade. We conducted this study to evaluate the benefits of preperitoneal catheter analgesia in managing pain after abdominal colon and rectal resections. METHODS: A total of 50 patients undergoing colon and rectal resections for benign and malignant diseases received analgesic medicines via an epidural catheter placed just prior to surgery and a preperitoneal catheter placed at the end of the surgical procedure. Patients were instructed to use the epidural patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device freely and were randomized into two groups after obtaining the approval of the Institutional Review Board: Group A received 10 ml of levobupivacaine twice a day postoperatively via preperitoneal catheter and group B received only 10 ml of saline. Demographics, surgical characteristics, pain scores recorded four days following surgery, analgesic volume used from the epidural PCA, clinical outcomes (length of stay, time to first bowel movement, time to first passage of gas or stool, time to first oral intake) and respiratory function test results (preoperative vs. postoperative) were compared. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in demographics or surgical characteristics between both groups. Pain scores were similar. Clinical outcomes and respiratory functions were comparable. The use of analgesic volume via epidural catheter was significantly lower in group A than in group B (P = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Preperitoneal catheter analgesia significantly decreased the need for epidural drug consumption and proved to be a beneficial adjunct for postoperative pain management of patients who underwent colon and rectal resections.

Focused review: ropivacaine versus bupivacaine for epidural labor analgesia.

Neuraxial analgesia is frequently administered to women in labor. For many years, bupivacaine has been used because of its long duration of action, lack of excessive motor block, and minimal fetal and neonatal effects. However, bupivacaine is one of the most cardiotoxic local anesthetics in current use and motor block is still a problem. Many local anesthetics such as bupivacaine exist in 2 forms, levorotatory and dextrorotatory. Ropivacaine, an amide local anesthetic produced in the pure levorotatory form addresses some of the concerns related to bupivacaine. In this article, we present the literature comparing ropivacaine and bupivacaine to determine whether there is an advantage to using one of these local anesthetics for labor analgesia. We found that there is no advantage to the routine use of ropivacaine for labor analgesia.

Comparison of cost and outcomes in patients receiving thoracic epidural versus liposomal bupivacaine for video-assisted thoracoscopic pulmonary resection.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic Epidural has long been the most recommended treatment for postoperative pain management in general thoracic surgery. This study compares liposomal bupivacaine (LB) as an alternative method for pain control and compares it to the standard. METHODS: LB was compared to thoracic epidural bupivacaine hydrochloride (TE BH) in 387 patients who underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic pulmonary resection (VATS-R) at our institution. Patients received either continuous TE BH or intraoperative LB at a predetermined dose. A total of 237 patients received TE BH from April 2010 to March 2014 and 143 patients received LB from April 2014 to March 2016. After propensity matching, 95 patients in each group had similar demographics and clinical characteristics including gender, age, race, American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) classification, Zubrod scores, and FEV1 and DLCO percent predicted measurements. Outcome measures included hospital costs, length of stay (LOS), adverse events, postoperative opioid medication use, and pain scores. RESULTS: Compared to the TE BH group, the LB group had significantly lower pain scores (average visual analogue scale the day of surgery: 3.9 versus 4.5, p < 0.05), decreased postoperative opioid medication (morphine equivalent dose during the first 3 days: 344.5 versus 269.5, p < 0.05), and lower total and direct hospital costs ($2906 and $1865 respectively, p < 0.05). Although a shorter LOS in the LB group was not statistically significant (4.3 versus 5.1 days, p = 0.156), more patients in the LB group were discharged directly home than the control group (44.2% versus 28.4%, p < 0.05). There was no difference noted in overall adverse events including 30-day readmissions between the two groups. CONCLUSION: LB is a viable alternative for pain management in patients undergoing VATS-R. With recent scrutiny on healthcare costs and the opioid epidemic, these results are encouraging and should be further investigated.

The cost-effectiveness of epidural, patient-controlled intravenous opioid analgesia, or transversus abdominis plane infiltration with liposomal bupivacaine for postoperative pain management.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Intravenous patient-controlled opioid analgesia (IVPCA), epidural analgesia and transversus abdominis plane (TAP) infiltrations are frequently used postoperative pain management modalities. The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the use of epidural, IVPCA, and TAP infiltrations with liposomal bupivacaine for analgesia in the first 72 h postoperatively in patients undergoing major lower abdominal surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective cost effectiveness analysis. SETTING: Operating room. PATIENTS: We obtained data on major lower-abdominal surgeries performed under general anesthesia on adult patients between January 2012 and July 2014. INTERVENTIONS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was comparing the use of epidural, IVPCA, and TAP infiltrations with liposomal bupivacaine for analgesia in the first 72 h postoperatively. MEASUREMENTS: A decision analytic model was used to estimate the health outcomes for patients undergoing major lower abdominal surgery. The primary outcome was time-weighted pain from 0 to 72 h after surgery, as measured by numerical rating scale pain scores. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the hospital as the party responsible for most costs related to surgery. MAIN RESULTS: From the base case analysis, IVPCA was the optimal strategy regarding cost and effect. TAP with LB, however, was only narrowly dominated, while epidural was clearly dominated. From the sensitivity analysis at willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $150, IV PCA and TAP infiltration were each the optimal strategy for approximately 50% of the iterations. At WTP of $10,000, epidural was only the optimal strategy in 10% of the iterations. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study in the literature to compare the cost-effectiveness of epidural, IVPCA, and TAP infiltrations with LB. Within reasonable WTP values, there is little differentiation in cost-effectiveness between IVPCA and TAP infiltration with LB. Epidural does not become a cost-effective strategy even at much higher WTP values.

Could benefits of epidural analgesia following oesophagectomy be measured by perceived perioperative patient workload?

BACKGROUND: A controversy exists whether beneficial analgesic effects of epidural analgesia over intravenous analgesia influence the rate of post-operative complications and the length of hospital stay. There is some evidence that favours epidural analgesia following major surgery in high-risk patients. However, there is a controversy as to whether epidural analgesia reduces the intensive care resources following major surgery. In this study, we aimed at comparing the post-operative costs of intensive care in patients receiving epidural or intravenous analgesia. METHODS: Clinical data and rates of post-operative complications were extracted from a previously reported trial following thoraco-abdominal oesophagectomy. Cost data for individual patients included in that trial were retrospectively obtained from administrative records. Two separate phases were defined: costs of pain treatment and the direct cost of intensive care. RESULTS: Higher calculated costs of epidural vs. intravenous pain treatment, 1,037 vs. 410 Euros / patient, were outweighed by lower post-operative costs of intensive care 5,571 vs. 7,921 Euros / patient (NS). CONCLUSION: Higher costs and better analgesic effects of epidural analgesia compared with intravenous analgesia do not reduce total costs for post-operative care following major surgery.

[Cost benefit analysis of portable disposable patient-controlled epidural analgesia pump under the diagnosis procedure combination based payment system].

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess how portable disposable patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) pumps (P group) affect the total costs of postoperative pain management compared with ordinary continuous epidural analgesia pumps without patient-controlled analgesia(C group). METHODS: The hospital income, material costs and costs of drugs for postoperative analgesia were analyzed in 446 surgical patients (C group) between April 2005 and November 2005 and in 417 surgical patients (P group) between April 2006 and November 2006, respectively. RESULTS: Considerable cost savings were achieved when PCEA pumps was used (C group--1300 yen/per patient; P group + 1950 yen/per patient). CONCLUSIONS: PCEA pumps itself work out as designated insured medical materials and additional drugs for postoperative analgesia in the ward is cleared under the diagnosis procedure combination (DPC)-based payment system. Clearance of PCEA pumps under the DPC-based payment system and cost savings of additional drugs for postoperative analgesia in the ward contributed to increases in the profit of the hospital. The DPC-based payment system may offer an economic incentive to introduction of PCEA.