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.

Clinical and economic impact of the use of dexmedetomidine for sedation in the intensive care unit compared to propofol.

Background Despite the advantages of dexmedetomidine (DEX) over propofol (PRO) including minimal respiratory depression and the potential for preventing and/or treating intensive care unit (ICU) delirium, PRO has been the preferred agent due to its lower cost. However, the acquisition cost of DEX has considerably decreased as a generic version of DEX has recently become available. Objective To evaluate clinical and economic outcomes of DEX-based sedation compared to PRO in the ICU. Setting A retrospective cohort study of 86 ICU patients who received either DEX or PRO for a period ≥ 12 h. Method Patients were matched by age, sex, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcome measure Clinical outcomes included the duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and requirements of concomitant sedatives and opioids. Economic outcomes included the ICU and hospital costs as well as the cost of sedatives or combined sedatives and opioids per patient. Results There were no significant differences in ICU and hospital LOS and time on MV in both groups (median ICU LOS 7 [DEX] vs. 9 [PRO] days, p = 0.07; median hospital LOS 12 [DEX] vs. 14 [PRO] days, p = 0.261; median time of MV 144 [DEX] vs. 158 [PRO] hours, p = 0.176). DEX-based sedation compared to PRO was associated with similar ICU and hospital costs (US$ 67,561 vs. 78,429, p = 0.39; US$ 71,923 vs. 71,084, p = 0.1). Conclusion The clinical outcomes and economic impact associated with DEX- and PRO-based sedation were similar.

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.

Medical, Political, and Economic Considerations for the Use of MAC for Endoscopic Sedation: Big Price, Little Justification?

The last few decades of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy have seen phenomenal growth. In many aspects, GI endoscopy has led the field of nonsurgical interventional medicine. In many aspects, this growth is facilitated by advancements in sedation-both drugs and techniques. Unfortunately, the topic of GI endoscopy sedation is also mired in many controversies, mainly emanating from the cost of anesthesia providers. While no one debates their role in the majority of advanced endoscopic procedures, the practice of universal propofol sedation in the USA, delivered by anesthesia providers, needs a closer look. In this review, medical, political, and economic considerations of this important topic are discussed in a very frank and honest way. While such ubiquitous propofol use has increased satisfaction of both patients and gastroenterologists, there is little justification. More importantly, going by the evidence, there is even less justification for the mandated anesthesia providers use for such delivery. Unfortunately, the FDA could not be convinced otherwise. The new drug fospropofol met the same fate. Approval of SEDASYS®, the first computer-assisted personalized sedation system, was a step in the right direction, nevertheless an insufficient step that failed to takeoff. As a result, in spite of years of research and efforts of many august societies, the logjam of balancing cost and justification of propofol sedation has continued. We hope that recent approval of remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine, and potential approval of oliceridine, a novel short-acting opioid, might be able to contain the cost without compromising the quality of sedation.

Patient-controlled sedation with propofol for endoscopic procedures-A cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) with propofol accompanied by a bedside nurse anaesthetist is an alternative sedation method for endoscopic procedures compared with midazolam administered by a nurse or endoscopist. Increasing costs in health care demands an economic perspective when introducing alternative methods. We applied a hospital perspective on a cost analysis comparing different methods of sedation and the resource use that were expected to affect cost differences related to the sedation. METHODS: Based on two randomised previous studies, the direct costs were determined for different sedation methods during two advanced endoscopic procedures: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and flexible bronchoscopy including endobronchial ultrasound. ERCP comparisons were made between midazolam sedation by the endoscopic team, PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist and propofol sedation administered by a nurse anaesthetist. Bronchoscopy comparisons were made between midazolam sedation by the endoscopic team and PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist, categorised by premedication morphine-scopolamine or glycopyrronium. RESULTS: Propofol PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist resulted in lower costs per patient for sedation for both ERCP (233 USD) and bronchoscopy (premedication morphine-scopolamine 267 USD, premedication glycopyrronium 269 USD) compared with midazolam (ERCP 425 USD, bronchoscopy 337 USD). Aborted procedures that needed to be repeated and prolonged hospital stays significantly increased the cost for the midazolam groups. CONCLUSION: Propofol PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist reduces the direct sedation costs for ERCP and bronchoscopy procedures compared with midazolam sedation.

Better Pairing Propofol Volume With Procedural Needs: A Propofol Waste Reduction Quality Improvement Project.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Propofol facilitates deep sedation without requiring intubation and is often used by infusion to maintain sedation. Variability in ordering and preparation strategies resulted in significant propofol volumes wasted at the conclusion of procedures in our clinic. With drug shortages now common, we designed a quality improvement initiative to reduce our propofol waste. METHODS: Data collection during the preintervention phase reflected current practice trends. Two propofol dosing tables (≥50 or <50 kg) were designed to estimate the volume of propofol infusion required for sedations spanning 15 to 180 minutes. Nurses prepared propofol infusions as directed by these tables. The primary outcome measure was reduction in waste when the infusion was prepared by standardized strategy versus usual practice. Balancing measures included occurrences of insufficient infusion volume and premature awakenings from deep sedation. Waste volumes were plotted and displayed chronologically in statistical process control charts for the clinic and individual providers. RESULTS: A total of 155 patients received a propofol infusion to maintain deep sedation. The preintervention phase included 77 patients, and the intervention phase included 78 patients. Special cause variation was achieved in the intervention phase. Median (interquartile range) propofol waste volume per procedure declined from 45.6 mL (24.3-71 mL) to 14.3 mL (9.6-19.4 mL), representing a 68% waste reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Using an internally derived systematic approach to ordering and preparing a propofol infusion, we reduced variability, reduced propofol waste, and created cost savings for our organization. This approach is tailorable to other infusions and clinical settings.

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).

Implementation of a new method to track propofol in an endoscopy unit.

AIM: Propofol is a widely used anesthesia induction agent and is easily accessible in most healthcare facilities. Unlike regulated or schedule drugs, propofol is inconsistently tracked, leading to inaccurate inventories, incorrect billing, and unrecognized diversion. The goal of this project was to implement a new method of tracking propofol in a single setting, with the aim of accounting for 100% of the drug. METHODS: For two, 2-week observation periods, data were extracted from an automated medication management system or pharmacy inventory system, anesthesia records, and pharmacy billing sheets for cases in a Gastrointestinal (GI) Endoscopy Unit, and compared pre-implementation and post-implementation of a new tracking and accounting protocol. Variables included amount of propofol inventoried, dispensed, administered, returned, billed, wasted, and missing. RESULTS: Pre-implementation (n = 300), 10% cases had no record of propofol removal from the automated medication system. Of the 90% that did, 25% had an amount signed out that did not match the amount administered. Thirty-one percent of all propofol was unaccounted for during this 2-week period. Furthermore, 19.7% of cases did not have a billing form located. Post-implementation of the process change, unaccounted for propofol decreased to 26% of all cases (P = ns). The percentage of missing billing forms decreased from 19.7 to 5.8% (P = 0.00). CONCLUSION: Data suggest notable amounts of propofol were unaccounted for and not billed for in the GI Endoscopy Unit prior to the protocol change. Post-protocol change data reveal modest improved accounting of the medication and significant cost-capture. Improvements may enhance inventory reconciliation, availability of drug stock, and potentially result in a decreased risk of unrecognized diversion.

Sedation in colonoscopy by using three different propofol infusion methods and analysis of plasma concentration levels: a prospective comparative study / Sedação em colonoscopia: utilização do propofol em estudo comparativo entre três diferentes modos de administração

ABSTRACT Background: The propofolemia becomes directly linked to the clinical effects of this anesthetic and is the focus for studies comparing propofol clinical use, in different administration methods routinely used in endoscopy units where sedation is widely administered to patients. Aim: To evaluate the effects of three different regimens of intravenous propofol infusion in colonoscopies. Methods: A total of 50 patients that underwent colonoscopies were consecutively assigned to three groups: 1) intermittent bolus infusion; 2) continuous manually controlled infusion; 3) continuous automatic infusion. Patients were monitored with Bispectral IndexTM (BIS) and propofol serum levels were collected at three different timepoints. The development of an original dilution of propofol and an inventive capnography catheter were necessary. Results: Regarding clinical outcomes, statistical differences in agitation (higher in group 1, p=0.001) and initial blood pressure (p=0.008) were found. As for propofol serum levels, findings were similar in consumption per minute (p=0.748) and over time (p=0.830). In terms of cost analysis, group 1 cost was R$7.00 (approximately US$2,25); group2, R$17.50 (approximately US$5,64); and group 3, R$112.70 (approximately US$36,35, p<0.001). Capnography was able to predict 100% of the oxygen saturation drop (below 90%). Conclusion: The use of propofol bolus administration for colonoscopies, through continuous manually controlled infusion or automatic infusion are similar regarding propofolemia and the clinical outcomes evaluated. The use of an innovative capnography catheter is liable and low-cost solution for the early detection of airway obstruction.

RESUMO Racional: A propofolemia está diretamente relacionada com os efeitos clínicos desse anestésico e é foco de diversos estudos comparando os usos clínicos do propofol e os diferentes métodos de administração, como realizado amplamente nos centros de endoscopia. Objetivo: Avaliar os efeitos de três diferentes regimes de infusão de propofol intravenoso em colonoscopias. Métodos: Ao todo 50 pacientes que foram submetidos à colonoscopia foram consecutivamente divididos em três grupos: 1) infusão em bolus intermitente; 2) perfusão contínua controlada manualmente; 3) infusão automática contínua. Os pacientes foram monitorados com Bispectral IndexTM (BIS) e os níveis séricos de propofol foram coletados em três momentos diferentes. Foi necessário a preparação de uma diluição específica de propofol e o desenvolvimento de um cateter de capnografia original manufaturado para a realização do estudo. Resultados: Em relação aos desfechos clínicos, houve diferença estatística na agitação (maior no grupo 1, p=0,001) e pressão arterial inicial (p=0,008). Com relação aos níveis séricos de propofol, os resultados foram semelhantes no consumo por minuto (p=0,748) e ao longo do tempo (p=0,830). Em termos de análise de custo, no grupo 1 o custo foi de R$ 7,00 (aproximadamente US$ 2,25); grupo 2, R$ 17,50 (aproximadamente US$ 5,64); e grupo 3, R$ 112,70 (cerca de US$ 36,35, p<0,001). A capnografia foi capaz de diagnosticar 100% das dessaturações de oxigênio (abaixo de 90%). Conclusão: O uso de propofol em bolus para colonoscopias, por meio de infusão contínua controlada manualmente ou infusão automática são semelhantes quanto à propofolemia e os resultados clínicos avaliados. Além disso, o uso de um cateter de capnografia inovador é solução de baixo custo para a detecção precoce da obstrução da via aérea.

SEDATION IN COLONOSCOPY BY USING THREE DIFFERENT PROPOFOL INFUSION METHODS AND ANALYSIS OF PLASMA CONCENTRATION LEVELS: A PROSPECTIVE COMPARATIVE STUDY.

Background: The propofolemia becomes directly linked to the clinical effects of this anesthetic and is the focus for studies comparing propofol clinical use, in different administration methods routinely used in endoscopy units where sedation is widely administered to patients. Aim: To evaluate the effects of three different regimens of intravenous propofol infusion in colonoscopies. Methods: A total of 50 patients that underwent colonoscopies were consecutively assigned to three groups: 1) intermittent bolus infusion; 2) continuous manually controlled infusion; 3) continuous automatic infusion. Patients were monitored with Bispectral IndexTM (BIS) and propofol serum levels were collected at three different timepoints. The development of an original dilution of propofol and an inventive capnography catheter were necessary. Results: Regarding clinical outcomes, statistical differences in agitation (higher in group 1, p=0.001) and initial blood pressure (p=0.008) were found. As for propofol serum levels, findings were similar in consumption per minute (p=0.748) and over time (p=0.830). In terms of cost analysis, group 1 cost was R$7.00 (approximately US$2,25); group2, R$17.50 (approximately US$5,64); and group 3, R$112.70 (approximately US$36,35, p<0.001). Capnography was able to predict 100% of the oxygen saturation drop (below 90%). Conclusion: The use of propofol bolus administration for colonoscopies, through continuous manually controlled infusion or automatic infusion are similar regarding propofolemia and the clinical outcomes evaluated. The use of an innovative capnography catheter is liable and low-cost solution for the early detection of airway obstruction.

Racional: A propofolemia está diretamente relacionada com os efeitos clínicos desse anestésico e é foco de diversos estudos comparando os usos clínicos do propofol e os diferentes métodos de administração, como realizado amplamente nos centros de endoscopia. Objetivo: Avaliar os efeitos de três diferentes regimes de infusão de propofol intravenoso em colonoscopias. Métodos: Ao todo 50 pacientes que foram submetidos à colonoscopia foram consecutivamente divididos em três grupos: 1) infusão em bolus intermitente; 2) perfusão contínua controlada manualmente; 3) infusão automática contínua. Os pacientes foram monitorados com Bispectral IndexTM (BIS) e os níveis séricos de propofol foram coletados em três momentos diferentes. Foi necessário a preparação de uma diluição específica de propofol e o desenvolvimento de um cateter de capnografia original manufaturado para a realização do estudo. Resultados: Em relação aos desfechos clínicos, houve diferença estatística na agitação (maior no grupo 1, p=0,001) e pressão arterial inicial (p=0,008). Com relação aos níveis séricos de propofol, os resultados foram semelhantes no consumo por minuto (p=0,748) e ao longo do tempo (p=0,830). Em termos de análise de custo, no grupo 1 o custo foi de R$ 7,00 (aproximadamente US$ 2,25); grupo 2, R$ 17,50 (aproximadamente US$ 5,64); e grupo 3, R$ 112,70 (cerca de US$ 36,35, p<0,001). A capnografia foi capaz de diagnosticar 100% das dessaturações de oxigênio (abaixo de 90%). Conclusão: O uso de propofol em bolus para colonoscopias, por meio de infusão contínua controlada manualmente ou infusão automática são semelhantes quanto à propofolemia e os resultados clínicos avaliados. Além disso, o uso de um cateter de capnografia inovador é solução de baixo custo para a detecção precoce da obstrução da via aérea.

Comparison of Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol on Hospital Costs and Length of Stay.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this evaluation was to compare total hospital costs and length of stay of critically ill patients who received dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: This was a retrospective quality improvement evaluation at a tertiary care, academic medical center in the United States. Data were retrieved for patients discharged between April 2012 and June 2013. Patients were included if they were admitted to the ICU, were 18 years of age or older, and received dexmedetomidine or propofol for sedation. Multivariate regression models were developed to determine the association between sedative type and hospital costs, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: The final cohort included 3294 patients. Of these, 2685 received propofol and 609 received dexmedetomidine. The median hospital cost was US$31 041 (interquartile range [IQR] US$17 963-US$57 826) in the propofol group and US$46 716 (IQR US$31 247 to US$85 490) in the dexmedetomidine group (P < .001). The median ICU length of stay was 2 days (IQR 1-6 days) and 4 days (IQR 2-9 days) in the propofol and dexmedetomidine groups, respectively (P < .001). Overall, hospital length of stay was 8 days (IQR 4-15 days) and 9 days (IQR 5-18 days) in the 2 groups, respectively (P < .001). In the multivariate analyses, dexmedetomidine use was associated with increased costs, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay (P < .001 for each outcome). CONCLUSIONS: In this academic medical center, dexmedetomidine use was associated with higher costs when compared to propofol for sedation in the ICU. Also, use of dexmedetomidine was associated with increased lengths of ICU and hospital stay. Future prospective trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Is the anesthesiologist necessary in the endoscopy suite? A review of patients, payers and safety.

The use of propofol for sedation during endoscopy has been increasing, particularly given its association with superior patient satisfaction. Propofol sedation may also allow for higher quality endoscopy exams, increased efficiency of endoscopy suites and most particularly, permit better patient compliance with colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. However, propofol is typically provided by anesthesia specialists via monitored anesthesia care, and is associated with significant economic burden. Given the increasing use of monitored anesthesia care, which adds significant costs to endoscopy, payers are likely to react with changes in payer policies. One alternative to monitored anesthesia care is non-anesthesiologist administered propofol, which due to safety concerns and a lack of reimbursement has not been widely adopted in the US.

Dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation with propofol or midazolam in intensive care: an economic evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Dexmedetomidine was shown in two European randomized double-blind double-dummy trials (PRODEX and MIDEX) to be non-inferior to propofol and midazolam in maintaining target sedation levels in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Additionally, dexmedetomidine shortened the time to extubation versus both standard sedatives, suggesting that it may reduce ICU resource needs and thus lower ICU costs. Considering resource utilization data from these two trials, we performed a secondary, cost-minimization analysis assessing the economics of dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation. METHODS: The total ICU costs associated with each study sedative were calculated on the basis of total study sedative consumption and the number of days patients remained intubated, required non-invasive ventilation, or required ICU care without mechanical ventilation. The daily unit costs for these three consecutive ICU periods were set to decline toward discharge, reflecting the observed reduction in mean daily Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) points between the periods. A number of additional sensitivity analyses were performed, including one in which the total ICU costs were based on the cumulative sum of daily TISS points over the ICU period, and two further scenarios, with declining direct variable daily costs only. RESULTS: Based on pooled data from both trials, sedation with dexmedetomidine resulted in lower total ICU costs than using the standard sedatives, with a difference of €2,656 in the median (interquartile range) total ICU costs-€11,864 (€7,070 to €23,457) versus €14,520 (€7,871 to €26,254)-and €1,649 in the mean total ICU costs. The median (mean) total ICU costs with dexmedetomidine compared with those of propofol or midazolam were €1,292 (€747) and €3,573 (€2,536) lower, respectively. The result was robust, indicating lower costs with dexmedetomidine in all sensitivity analyses, including those in which only direct variable ICU costs were considered. The likelihood of dexmedetomidine resulting in lower total ICU costs compared with pooled standard care was 91.0% (72.4% versus propofol and 98.0% versus midazolam). CONCLUSIONS: From an economic point of view, dexmedetomidine appears to be a preferable option compared with standard sedatives for providing light to moderate ICU sedation exceeding 24 hours. The savings potential results primarily from shorter time to extubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00479661 (PRODEX), NCT00481312 (MIDEX).

Sedação em colonoscopia: utilização do propofol em estudo comparativo entre três diferentes modos de administração / Sedation in colonoscopy: use of propofol in a comparative study of three different administration methods

O uso do propofol em sedação para colonoscopia e outros procedimentos endoscópicos é cada vez mais frequente, devido ao seu rápido início de efeito e curto período de recuperação, com poucos efeitos residuais, o que o torna um anestésico ideal para o uso em condutas médicas realizadas em regime ambulatorial. Seu perfil farmacológico o posiciona como um anestésico adequado a métodos de administração endovenosa contínuos ou titulados, possibilitando maior controle na sua concentração plasmática. Devido à sua alta lipossolubilidade, o propofol difunde-se rapidamente ao sistema nervoso e outros tecidos aonde exercerá seu efeito clínico, intimamente ligado à propofolemia, com diminuição da atividade do sistema nervoso central, que determinará tanto a sedação nos seus diversos níveis, quanto os indesejados efeitos depressores do sistema cardiovascular e respiratório, podendo levar a uma diminuição importante do débito cardíaco e pressão arterial e também a uma depressão central do sistema regulatório da respiração, que pode gerar apneia ou hipoventilação significativas. O presente estudo teve como objetivo avaliar clinicamente, e com dosagem sérica, o propofol em três esquemas diferentes de infusão endovenosa. Foram avaliados aleatoriamente 50 pacientes submetidos à colonoscopia nos Serviços de Endoscopia do Hospital Ana Costa (Santos - SP) e no Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (São Paulo-SP). Os pacientes foram divididos em três grupos, conforme o esquema de sedação que foi utilizado. O Grupo 1 recebeu fentanil no início, uma dose inicial de propofol de um miligrama por quilo em um minuto na indução, posteriormente recebeu propofol em infusão intermitente de doses fracionadas de 30 mg (bolus) conforme necessidade clínica durante o exame. O Grupo 2 recebeu fentanil no início, uma dose inicial de propofol de 1 mg/kg em um minuto na indução, após essa, recebeu propofol contínuo em uma solução diluída a 0,2% em solução...

The use of propofol sedation for colonoscopies and other endoscopic procedures is increasing due to the rapid onset of effect and short recovery time with few residual effects, which makes it an ideal anesthetic for usingin outpatient medical procedures. Its pharmacological profile places it as a suitable anesthetic to continuous or titred intravenous administration, providing increased control in its plasma levels. Due to its high liposolubility, propofol diffuses rapidly to the central nervous system and other tissues where it shall perform its clinical effects, closely related to plasma concentration, and providing sedation at different levels, as much as the unwanted depressant effects of the cardiovascular and respiratory system, it may lead to a significant reduction in cardiac output and blood pressure and also a central regulatory breathing system depression, that can result in significant apnea or hypoventilation. This study aimed to evaluate clinically and serum, propofol in three different regimens of intravenous infusion. 50 patients submitted to colonoscopy in the endoscopy centers at Hospital Ana Costa (Santos - SP), and Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (São Paulo-SP), have been randomly assessed. Such patients were divided into three groups, according to the sedation scheme that was used for them. Group 1 received fentanyl at first, then a one milligram per kilogram propofol dose, at induction, in a minute, later they received intermittent infusion of propofol in fractionated doses of 30 mg (Bolus) according to clinical needs during the test. Group 2 received fentanyl in the beginning, a starting dose of propofol 1 mg/kg at induction in one minute, after that received propofol in a 0.2% solution diluted in 5% glucose solution at an initial 1 drop/kg of patient weight dose, equivalent to about one 100 u100/min, manually controlled and changed according to clinical need of the...

Feasibility of a cardiologist-only approach to sedation for electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: a randomized, open-blinded, prospective study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Sedation with propofol should be administered by personnel trained in advanced airway management. To overcome this limitation, the use of short acting benzodiazepines by cardiologists spread widely, causing concerns about the safety of this procedure in the absence of anesthesiology assistance. The aim of the study was to compare feasibility of a cardiologist-only approach with an anesthesiologist-assisted sedation protocol during elective direct-current cardioversion (DCC) of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: This prospective, open-blinded, randomized study included 204 patients, which were admitted for scheduled cardioversion of persistent AF, and randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either propofol or midazolam treatment arm. Patients in the propofol group underwent DCC with anesthesiologist assistance, while patients in the midazolam group saw the cardiologist as the only responsible for both sedation and DCC. RESULTS: Twenty-three adverse events occurred: 13 in the propofol group and 10 in the midazolam group (p=NS). Most of them were related to bradyarrhythmias and respiratory depressions. There was no need of intubation or other advanced resuscitation techniques in any of these patients. No differences were found regarding procedure tolerability and safety endpoints between the two groups. DCC procedures with anesthesiology support were burdened by higher delay from scheduled time and higher costs. CONCLUSIONS: Sedation with midazolam administered by cardiologist-only appears to be as safe as sedation with propofol and anesthesiologist assistance. Adverse events were few in both groups and easily handled by the cardiologist alone. A cardiologist-only approach to sedation provides less procedural delay, thus being easier to schedule and correlated with fewer costs.

Cost effectiveness of a benzodiazepine vs a nonbenzodiazepine-based sedation regimen for mechanically ventilated, critically ill adults.

PURPOSE: Nonbenzodiazepine sedation (eg, dexmedetomidine or propofol) may be more cost effective than benzodiazepine (BZ) sedation despite its higher acquisition cost. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost effectiveness (CE) analysis of noncardiac surgery, critically ill adults requiring at least 1 day of mechanical ventilation (MV) and administered either BZ or non-BZ sedation, that cycled health states and costs daily using a Markov model accounting for daily MV use until intensive care unit (ICU) discharge, was conducted from a third-party perspective. Transition probabilities were obtained from a published meta-analysis, and costs were estimated from best evidence. Sensitivity analyses were run for all extubation and discharge probabilities, for different cost estimates and for the specific non-BZ administered. RESULTS: When non-BZ rather than BZ sedation was used, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to avert 1 ICU day while MV or while either MV or non-MV was $3406 and $3136, respectively. The base-case analysis revealed that non-BZ sedation (vs BZ sedation) resulted in higher drug costs ($1327 vs $65) but lower total ICU costs (percent accounted for MV need): $35380 (71.0%) vs $45394 (70.6%). Sensitivity analysis revealed that BZ sedation would only be less costly if the daily rate of extubation was at least 16%, and the daily rate of ICU discharge without MV was at least 77%. The incremental CE ratio to avert 1 ICU day while MV or non-MV was similar between the dexmedetomidine and propofol non-BZ options. CONCLUSIONS: Among MV adults, non-BZ sedation has a more favorable CE ratio than BZ sedation over most cost estimates.

Midazolam and propofol used alone or sequentially for long-term sedation in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients: a prospective, randomized study.

INTRODUCTION: Midazolam and propofol used alone for long-term sedation are associated with adverse effects. Sequential use may reduce the adverse effects, and lead to faster recovery, earlier extubation and lower costs. This study evaluates the effects, safety, and cost of midazolam, propofol, and their sequential use for long-term sedation in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: A total of 135 patients who required mechanical ventilation for >3 days were randomly assigned to receive midazolam (group M), propofol (group P), or sequential use of both (group M-P). In group M-P, midazolam was switched to propofol until the patients passed the spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) safety screen. The primary endpoints included recovery time, extubation time and mechanical ventilation time. The secondary endpoints were pharmaceutical cost, total cost of ICU stay, and recollection to mechanical ventilation-related events. RESULTS: The incidence of agitation following cessation of sedation in group M-P was lower than group M (19.4% versus 48.7%, P = 0.01). The mean percentage of adequate sedation and duration of sedation were similar in the three groups. The recovery time, extubation time and mechanical ventilation time of group M were 58.0 (interquartile range (IQR), 39.0) hours, 45.0 (IQR, 24.5) hours, and 192.0 (IQR, 124.0) hours, respectively; these were significantly longer than the other groups, while they were similar between the other two groups. In the treatment-received analysis, ICU duration was longer in group M than group M-P (P = 0.016). Using an intention-to-treat analysis and a treatment-received analysis, respectively, the pharmaceutical cost of group M-P was lower than group P (P <0.01) and its ICU cost was lower than group M (P <0.01; P = 0.015). The proportion of group M-P with unbearable memory of the uncomfortable events was lower than in group M (11.7% versus 25.0%, P <0.01), while the proportion with no memory was similar (P >0.05). The incidence of hypotension in group M-P was lower than group (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Sequential use of midazolam and propofol was a safe and effective sedation protocol, with higher clinical effectiveness and better cost-benefit ratio than midazolam or propofol used alone, for long-term sedation of critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01173443. Registered 25 February 2014.

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.