Cost-effectiveness of the Perioperative Pain Management Bundle a registry-based study.

Introduction: The Perioperative Pain Management Bundle was introduced in 10 Serbian PAIN OUT network hospitals to improve the quality of postoperative pain management. The Bundle consists of 4 elements: informing patients about postoperative pain treatment options; administering a full daily dose of 1-2 non-opioid analgesics; administering regional blocks and/or surgical wound infiltration; and assessing pain after surgery. In this study, we aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the Bundle during the initial 24 h after surgery. Materials and methods: The assessment of cost-effectiveness was carried out by comparing patients before and after Bundle implementation and by comparing patients who received all Bundle elements to those with no Bundle element. Costs of postoperative pain management included costs of the analgesic medications, costs of labor for administering these medications, and related disposable materials. A multidimensional Pain Composite Score (PCS), the effectiveness measurement, was obtained by averaging variables from the International Pain Outcomes questionnaire evaluating pain intensity, interference of pain with activities and emotions, and side effects of analgesic medications. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as the incremental change in costs divided by the incremental change in PCS and plotted on the cost-effectiveness plane along with the economic preference analysis. Results: The ICER value calculated when comparing patients before and after Bundle implementation was 181.89 RSD (1.55 EUR) with plotted ICERs located in the northeast and southeast quadrants of the cost-effectiveness plane. However, when comparing patients with no Bundle elements and those with all four Bundle elements, the calculated ICER was -800.63 RSD (-6.82 EUR) with plotted ICERs located in the southeast quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane. ICER values differ across surgical disciplines. Conclusion: The proposed perioperative pain management Bundle is cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness varies depending on the number of implemented Bundle elements and fluctuates across surgical disciplines.

Anesthesia for patients with psychiatric illnesses: a narrative review with emphasis on preoperative assessment and postoperative recovery and pain.

The physical and psychological fragility of patients with psychiatric illness poses critical importance in the preoperative assessment, evaluation, and choice of premedication, which includes regular therapy, as well as concerns about polypharmacy with possible interactions of anesthetics, analgesics, and psychiatric medications. A considerable effort is to reduce risks for exacerbations or relapses of imminent illness in the postoperative period. In this narrative review, the goal was also set towards the use of proper tools for the preoperative assessment of anxiety and management of postoperative pain. Indeed anxiety can be a manifestation of primary comorbidity within the spectrum of a major psychiatric condition and affects dramatically the presentations of other symptoms as well evolution. Pain perception is changed in patients with psychiatric illness; therefore, the postoperative bundle of measures including assessment of pain using tools adjusted to the patient's cognitive state and regular nonopioid analgesics is important aiming to minimize opioid use. Ketamine, esketamine, xenon, nitrous oxide, dexmedetomidine, and propofol seem to have a novel role and benefit the management of certain types of psychiatric illness during the perioperative period. Psychiatrist involvement is necessary throughout the perioperative period, starting preoperatively and continuing after discharge. Clinical pharmacologists should be part of the team during the management of critically ill patients when polypharmacy can cause undesirable effects. Psychosocial wellbeing of surgical patients with psychiatric co-morbidity depends deeply on the collaboration of medical staff, family, and friends and international guidelines aim to establish standards, including but not limited to postoperative management.

Patient-Controlled Intravenous Morphine Analgesia Combined with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Post-Thoracotomy Pain: A Cost-Effectiveness Study and A Feasibility For Its Future Implementation.

This prospective randomized study aims to evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with patient controlled intravenous morphine analgesia (PCA-IV) as part of multimodal analgesia after thoracotomy. Patients assigned to the active treatment group (a-tDCS, n = 27) received tDCS over the left primary motor cortex for five days, whereas patients assigned to the control group (sham-tDCS, n = 28) received sham tDCS stimulations. All patients received postoperative PCA-IV morphine. For cost-effectiveness analysis we used data about total amount of PCA-IV morphine and maximum visual analog pain scale with cough (VASP-Cmax). Direct costs of hospitalization were assumed as equal for both groups. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as the incremental cost (RSD or US$) per incremental gain in mm of VASP-Cmax reduction. Calculated ICER was 510.87 RSD per VASP-Cmax 1 mm reduction. Conversion on USA market (USA data 1.325 US$ for 1 mg of morphine) revealed ICER of 189.08 US$ or 18960.39 RSD/1 VASP-Cmax 1 mm reduction. Cost-effectiveness expressed through ICER showed significant reduction of PCA-IV morphine costs in the tDCS group. Further investigation of tDCS benefits with regards to reduction of postoperative pain treatment costs should also include the long-term benefits of reduced morphine use.

Metamizole Utilization and Expenditure During 6-Year Period: Serbia vs. Croatia.

Background: Metamizole is a medication with analgesic, antipyretic, spasmolytic, and weak anti-inflammatory effects. The aim of our study was to evaluate a six-year trend in the utilization and expenditure of metamizole in comparison to other group of licensed non-opioid analgesics in Serbia and Croatia, in order to rationalize its use and prescribing in these countries. Methods: The data of metamizole vs. all other non-opioid analgesics utilization and expenditure in Serbia and Croatia was analyzed according to the WHO methodology and expressed as defined daily doses per 1,000 inhabitants per day (DDD/1,000 inhabitants/per day) and total costs, respectively, during the 6-year period from 2010 to 2015. Results: In the observed period, utilization of metamizole was 3.31 fold higher in Serbia than in Croatia (median in Serbia was 2.238 vs. 0.675 in Croatia DDD/1,000 inhabitants/per day/per year). Expenditure of metamizole in the same period was 5.29-fold higher in Serbia than in Croatia (median in Serbia was 1,738,192.51 €/per year vs. 328,355.03 €/per year in Croatia). Conclusion: Utilization and expenditure of non-opioid analgesics, including metamizole, in Serbia was significantly higher comparing with Croatia.Further research is needed to determine whether the current analgesic consumption in Serbia meets the needs of the patient. The benefits of metamizole should be weighed against the risk of metamizole-induced adverse effects. Until then, its prescribing should be based on indications and the appropriate duration of therapy.