Cost-effectiveness of anesthesia maintained with sevoflurane or propofol with and without additional monitoring: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We compared cost-effectiveness of anesthesia maintained with sevoflurane or propofol with and without additional monitoring, in the clinical setting of ear-nose-throat surgery. METHODS: One hundred twenty adult patients were randomized to four groups. In groups SEVO and SEVO+ anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane, in group SEVO+ with additional bispectral index (BIS) and train-of-four (TOF) monitoring. In groups PROP and PROP+ anesthesia was maintained with propofol, in group PROP+ with additional BIS and TOF monitoring. RESULTS: Total cost of anesthesia per hour was greater in group SEVO+ compared to SEVO [€ 19.95(8.53) vs. 12.15(5.32), p <  0.001], and in group PROP+ compared to PROP (€ 22.11(8.08) vs. 13.23(4.23), p <  0.001]. Time to extubation was shorter in group SEVO+ compared to SEVO [11.1(4.7) vs. 14.5(3.9) min, p = 0.002], and in PROP+ compared to PROP [12.6(5.4) vs. 15.2(4.7) min, p <  0.001]. Postoperatively, arterial blood pressure returned to its initial values sooner in groups SEVO+ and PROP+. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that the use of BIS and TOF monitoring decreased the total cost of anesthesia drugs and hastened postoperative recovery. However, in our circumstances, these were associated with higher disposables costs. Detailed cost analysis and further investigations are needed to identify patient populations who would benefit most from additional monitoring. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02920749 . Retrospectively registered (date of registration September 2016).

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of depth of anaesthesia monitoring (E-Entropy, Bispectral Index and Narcotrend): a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: It is important that the level of general anaesthesia (GA) is appropriate for the individual patient undergoing surgery. If anaesthesia is deeper than required to keep a patient unconscious, there might be increased risk of anaesthetic-related morbidity, such as postoperative nausea, vomiting and cognitive dysfunction. This may also prolong recovery times, potentially increasing health-care costs. If anaesthesia is too light, patients may not be fully unconscious and could be at risk of intraoperative awareness. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this report is to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Bispectral Index (BIS), E-Entropy and Narcotrend technologies, each compared with standard clinical monitoring, to monitor the depth of anaesthesia in surgical patients undergoing GA. DATA SOURCES: A search strategy was developed and run on a number of bibliographic electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database. For the systematic review of patient outcomes, databases were searched from the beginning of 2009 to November 2011 for studies of BIS (and then updated in February 2012), and from 1995 to November 2011 (and then updated in February 2012) for studies of E-Entropy and Narcotrend. For the systematic review of cost-effectiveness, searches were from database inception to November 2011 (an update search was performed in February 2012). REVIEW METHODS: The systematic review of patient outcomes followed standard methodology for evidence synthesis. A decision-analytic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of depth of anaesthesia monitoring compared with standard clinical observation. A simple decision tree was developed, which accounted for patients' risk of experiencing short-term anaesthetic-related complications in addition to risk of experiencing intraoperative awareness. RESULTS: Twenty-two randomised controlled trials comparing BIS, E-Entropy and Narcotrend with standard clinical monitoring were included in the systematic review of patient outcomes, alongside evidence from a recent Cochrane review. Six trials of patients classified with risk factors for intraoperative awareness were combined in a fixed-effect meta-analysis. The overall pooled Peto's odds ratio was 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.25 to 0.81) in favour of BIS. However, there was statistically significant heterogeneity. The base-case cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for BIS compared with standard clinical monitoring ranged from £22,339 to £44,198 depending on patient subgroups (type of GA received; level of risk for awareness). For E-Entropy, base-case estimates ranged from £14,421 to £31,430. For Narcotrend, estimates varied from a cost per QALY of £8033 to Narcotrend dominating standard clinical monitoring. LIMITATIONS: The analysis was limited by lack of clinical effectiveness data, particularly for E-Entropy and Narcotrend. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence on the impact of the technologies on reducing the likelihood of intraoperative awareness is limited. However, there were reductions in general anaesthetic consumption and anaesthetic recovery times. The cost-effectiveness of depth of anaesthesia monitoring appears to be highly dependent on a number of factors, including probability of awareness. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42011001834. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-effectiveness of bispectral index monitoring.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In the current era of limited resources, organizations are evaluating the cost-effectiveness of their care. To analyze the cost-effectiveness of a physiologic monitor, one must first determine what negative outcome will be reduced or what positive outcome will be promoted. For example, if one was studying the cost-effectiveness of the pulse oximeter, it would be important to state whether the endpoint is prevention of hypoxic events or prevention of myocardial infarction. One would then need outcome data demonstrating the incidence of the chosen endpoint with and without the monitor. With these data, one can begin to construct a model for cost-effectiveness. Like many medical technologies, the bispectral index (BIS) monitor has recently been the subject of several articles which study its cost-effectiveness. This review examines the rationale of cost-effectiveness analyses and their application specifically to the BIS monitor. RECENT FINDINGS: The BIS monitor has been shown in multiple prospective randomized studies to positively affect several important aspects of an anesthetic. Use of the BIS monitor results in less use of hypnotic anesthetic drugs, decreased time to extubation, decreased incidence of nausea and vomiting, and decreased intraoperative awareness. These benefits are achieved for an additional cost of around five dollars per anesthetic. In addition, there is an emerging body of literature demonstrating an association between low intraoperative BIS readings and decreasing intermediate-term survival in both noncardiac and cardiac surgical patients. SUMMARY: Given the trivial cost of the BIS and the proven benefits demonstrated in prospective randomized studies, we consider its use justified in every general anesthetic.

Introduction of bispectral index monitoring in a district general hospital operating suite: a prospective audit of clinical and economic effects.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials have shown several beneficial effects of intraoperative bispectral index monitoring. We conducted a prospective audit to determine whether these could be replicated in everyday clinical practice. METHODS: Recovery characteristics and drug costs from two 4-week periods were compared, immediately before (phase 1, n = 427 patients) and after (phase 2, n = 299 patients) the introduction of bispectral index monitoring in the main operating theatres of a district general hospital. RESULTS: Demographic and intraoperative variables for the two patient groups were similar. Nausea (P = 0.002), vomiting (P = 0.008) and antiemetic use (P = 0.001) in the postanaesthesia care unit all decreased in phase 2, though unrelated changes in antiemetic policy may have been partly responsible. Recovery time was unaffected. Drug costs decreased in phase 2 by an average of 0.86 pounds per patient. The cost of each semi-reusable sensor was 6.60 pounds. CONCLUSION: In a prospective audit, benefits of intraoperative bispectral index monitoring in our district general hospital were not seen to the same degree as in randomized controlled trials elsewhere.