Economic Evaluation of Pharmacologic Pre- and Postconditioning With Sevoflurane Compared With Total Intravenous Anesthesia in Liver Surgery: A Cost Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacologic pre- and postconditioning with sevoflurane compared with total IV anesthesia in patients undergoing liver surgery reduced complication rates as shown in 2 recent randomized controlled trials. However, the potential health economic consequences of these different anesthesia regimens have not yet been assessed. METHODS: An expostcost analysis of these 2 trials in 129 patients treated between 2006 and 2010 was performed. We analyzed direct medical costs for in-hospital stay and compared pharmacologic pre- and postconditioning with sevoflurane (intervention) with total IV anesthesia (control) from the perspective of a Swiss university hospital. Year 2015 costs, converted to US dollars, were derived from hospital cost accounting data and compared with a multivariable regression analysis adjusting for relevant covariables. Costs with negative prefix indicate savings and costs with positive prefix represent higher spending in our analysis. RESULTS: Treatment-related costs per patient showed a nonsignificant change by -12,697 US dollars (95% confidence interval [CI], 10,956 to -36,352; P = .29) with preconditioning and by -6139 US dollars (95% CI, 6723 to -19,000; P = .35) with postconditioning compared with the control group. Results were robust in our sensitivity analysis. For both procedures (control and intervention) together, major complications led to a significant increase in costs by 86,018 US dollars (95% CI, 13,839-158,198; P = .02) per patient compared with patients with no major complications. CONCLUSIONS: In this cost analysis, reduced in-hospital costs by pharmacologic conditioning with sevoflurane in patients undergoing liver surgery are suggested. This possible difference in costs compared with total IV anesthesia is the result of reduced complication rates with pharmacologic conditioning, because major complications have significant cost implications.

Comparative cost analysis of three different anesthesia methods in gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

In the current study, we assessed and evaluated the costs and benefits of three popular methods of general anesthesia practiced in our department for gynecological laparoscopic surgery in recent years. Sixty adult female patients who underwent elective gynecological laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia were randomly divided into three groups: group V, group I and group C. In group V, anesthesia was induced intravenously with midazolam, remifentanil, propofol and vecuronium, and maintained with continuous infusion of propofol and remifentanil. In group I, anesthesia was intravenously induced with midazolam, fentanyl, propofol and vecuronium, and maintained with inhaled isoflurane and intravenous bonus of fentanyl. In group C, anesthesia was induced as in group I, but maintained with isoflurane inhalation combined with propofolremifentanil infusion. All patients received vecuronium for muscle relaxation. Perioperative incidences of complications and total anesthesia costs for patients in all groups were recorded. In addition, postoperative satisfaction of the patients was also noted, and similar outcomes of the satisfaction were reported in all 60 patients. Although there was no statistical significance among groups, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting were higher in group C, and the rates of shivering and the needs for analgesics were higher in group V. Anesthesia costs in group I were the lowest. Therefore, it is concluded that the costs of anesthesia induced with midazolam, fentanyl, propofol, vecuronium, and maintained with isoflurane, fentanyl and vecuronium are cheapest, and there is no significant difference in patients' satisfaction and safety among the three above-mentioned methods of anesthesia in our department.

Impact of remifentanil introduction on practice patterns in general anesthesia.

PURPOSE: The introduction of new medicine can change clinical practice patterns and may affect patient outcomes. In the present study, we investigated whether introduction of remifentanil in Japan affected the practice patterns of anesthesia. METHODS: Using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database, we extracted records of 423,491 patients who underwent surgery with general anesthesia in 243 hospitals before (2006) and after (2007) the introduction of remifentanil, and identified anesthetic agents used for each patient. A hierarchical mixed-effects logistic regression analysis was performed to analyze the factors that affected selection of remifentanil. Further, we compared postoperative length of stay (LOS), in-hospital mortality, and total costs between 2006 and 2007. RESULTS: In 2007, remifentanil was used for up to 41.4% of all general anesthesia, accompanied by a reduction in nitrous oxide use and an increase in total intravenous anesthesia. Female gender, increasing age, and preoperative comorbidities including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, liver cirrhosis, and chronic renal failure were positively associated with the use of remifentanil, whereas accompanying cardiac disease and co-application of epidural anesthesia were negatively associated. In 2007, a similar in-hospital death rate, similar or decreased total costs, slightly reduced duration of anesthesia, and substantially reduced postoperative LOS were seen compared to those in 2006. CONCLUSIONS: Our data revealed rapid changes in practice patterns in anesthesia after the introduction of remifentanil in Japan. Remifentanil was used more often in patients with comorbidities and without epidural anesthesia, and its introduction did not affect increase in total medical costs.

Inhalational or total intravenous anaesthesia: is total intravenous anaesthesia useful and are there economic benefits?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The comparison of inhalational and intravenous anaesthesia has been the subject of many controlled trials and meta-analyses. These reported diverse endpoints typically including measures of the speed and quality of induction of anaesthesia, haemodynamic changes, operating conditions, various measures of awakening, postoperative nausea and vomiting and discharge from the recovery area and from hospital as well as recovery of psychomotor function. In a more patient-focused Health Service, measures with greater credibility are overall patient satisfaction, time to return to work and long-term morbidity and mortality. In practice, studies using easier to measure proxy endpoints dominate - even though the limitations of such research are well known. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent study endpoints are more ambitious and include impact on survival from cancer and the possibility of differential neurotoxic impact on the developing brain and implications for neuro-behavioural performance. SUMMARY: Economic analysis of anaesthesia is complex and most published studies are naive, focusing on drug acquisition costs and facility timings, real health economics are much more difficult. Preferred outcome measures would be whole institution costs or the ability to reliably add an extra case to an operating list, close an operating room and reduce the number of operating sessions offered or permanently decrease staffing. Alongside this, however, potential long-term patient outcomes should be considered.

[Propofol administration systems. Handling, hemodynamics and propofol consumption]. / Propofolapplikationssysteme: Handhabung, Kreislaufverhalten und Propofolverbrauch.

BACKGROUND: During anaesthesia propofol is administered either by manual controlled infusion (MCI) or by target controlled infusion (TCI) techniques. In this study two different TCI systems for propofol administration were evaluated with regard to handling, patient safety, and costs and compared to administration of propofol by the MCI technique. METHODS: In a prospective study, 90 patients scheduled for elective surgery of the nose or nasal sinuses were randomly enrolled in three groups. The two TCI systems were examined in two groups of 30 patients: one group received propofol following the pharmacokinetic TCI model of Schnider (TCI-Schnider) and the other group received propofol following the TCI model of Marsh (TCI-Marsh). A manual perfusion technique (MCI, n=30) was used in the control group. Depth of anesthesia was controlled using the bispectral index (BSI) which was adjusted to fall within the range of 40-55. Hemodynamics, extubation times and time of awaking, rate and quality of propofol dose adjustment, total drug requirements, costs, and quality of recovery were documented. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) as well as shivering and patient satisfaction were also documented. RESULTS: Demographics, hemodynamics and perioperative data did not differ between the groups. Propofol consumption within the first 60 min also showed no significant differences. In the course of extended anaesthesia, propofol consumption was significantly less in both TCI groups compared to the control group (MCI) and the TCI-Schnider group also showed less episodes of bradycardia. The necessity of propofol dose adjustment did not differ significantly between the TCI groups. Administration and consumption of anaesthesia co-medication (fentanyl, remifentanil, cisatracurium) did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: The investigated propofol administration procedures using the MCI or TCI techniques were safe and easy to handle under BIS monitoring. No differences were found concerning extubation times and time of awaking. During extended anaesthesia procedures (>60 min), propofol consumption was lower with both TCI techniques and thus costs could be saved.

Cost analysis of three anesthetic regimens under auditory evoked potentials monitoring in gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Cost analyses of different anesthetic techniques have not been investigated in Taiwan. We compared propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA), sevoflurane (SEVO) and desflurane (DES) anesthesias for cost and outcome under A-line auditory evoked potentials (AEP) monitoring. METHODS: We studied 90 consecutive female patients (ASAI-II) scheduled to undergo elective gynecologic laparoscopic surgery. The study was prospective, randomized, and single-blind in design. All patients were randomly divided into 3 groups: i.e. groups TIVA, SEVO and DES. The A-line auditory evoked potential index (AAI) was maintained between 15-25. At the start of skin closure, the applied anesthetic was discontinued, and time of recovery from anesthesia was thenceforth reckoned until spontaneous opening of eyes and extubation. The costs of drugs were counted in New Taiwan (NT) dollars. RESULTS: The total cost was significantly higher in the SEVO and DES groups than in the TIVA group (NT 1,243, 1028, and 889, respectively) (P < 0.001). In addition, the cost of the principal anesthetic drug was significantly higher in the SEVO than in the DES and TIVA groups (NT 756, 530, and 468, respectively) (P < 0.01). Faster recovery was seen in the TIVA group than in the DES group and SEVO group (8.2, 13.7, 16.2 min, respectively) (P < 0.001). Incidences of postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pain were not significantly different among 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of TIVA with propofol was less than SEVO or DES anesthesia and moreover, propofol TIVA offered benefit of faster recovery in our study.

[Propofol for paediatric patients in ear, nose and throat surgery. Practicability, quality and cost-effectiveness of different anaesthesia procedures for adenoidectomy in infants]. / Propofoleinsatz für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Eingriffe im Kindesalter. Praktikabilität, Qualität und Kosteneffektivität verschiedener Narkoseverfahren zur Adenotomie bei Kindern.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was an improvement in patient comfort, reduction of anaesthesia costs and room contamination by the use of propofol for adenoidectomy. METHODS: A total of 103 infants (aged 1-5 years) undergoing elective adenoidectomy were randomized for anaesthesia with sevoflurane-nitrous oxide/oxygen (group 1), sevoflurane-air/alfentanil (group 2), alfentanil-propofol under induction with sevoflurane (group 3) or alfentanil-propofol (group 4). RESULTS: Using propofol, postoperative agitation and emesis were significantly less and the anaesthesia costs as well as the need for analgesics was reduced compared to inhalative anaesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: The use of propofol for preschool children undergoing ear, nose and throat (ENT) surgery seems to be advantageous because of less postoperative agitation, emesis and costs.

[Comparison of a propofol-based anesthesia regimen using optimated-target-controlled-infusion (OTCI) and manually-controlled infusion (MCI) technique]. / Propofol-Anästhesie mittels Target-Controlled-Infusion (TCI). Ein Vergleich der Verfahren: Optimated-Target-Controlled Infusion (OTCI) und Manually-Controlled-Infusion (MCI).

BACKGROUND: Propofol anesthesia based on target-controlled-infusion (TCI) has been shown to be superior to a manually-controlled-infusion (MCI) technique. A new optimal-target-controlled-infusion (OTCI) technique enables an individual plasma-targeted adjustment by including the concentration in the effect-compartment. This study compared practicability and costs of the new system with a conventional MCI-based propofol anesthesia regimen. METHODS: In a prospective study, 50 patients scheduled for elective surgery of nose or nasal sinuses were randomly enrolled to receive BIS-controlled anaesthesia (level: 40-55) using either OTCI (n = 25) or MCI (n = 25). Hemodynamics, extubation times and time of awaking, rate and quality of propofol adjustment, total drug requirements, costs, postanaesthetic care unit (PACU) stay, Aldrete and pain scores, and adverse effects (postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), shivering) were recorded. RESULTS: Demographics, hemodynamics, and perioperative data including extubation times were comparable for both study groups. Propofol consumption was similar within the first 60 min for both groups, thereafter, significantly less propofol in the OTCI group (5.03 mg/kg/h) than the MCI group (5.79 mg/kg/h) was used. Costs for propofol was significantly reduced with OTCI (0.2 vs. 0.23 Cent/anaesthesia minute/kg), the administration of other anaesthetics (fentanyl, remifentanil, cis-atracurium) did not differ between the groups. The number of infusion adjustments to BIS values were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: The new OTCI-system is a safe and easily controllable technique. The obvious advantage of this infusion system appears to be a reduction in propofol consumption and direct drug costs for anaesthesia lasting longer than 60 min.

Sedation in Japanese dental schools.

There is very little information about the practice of sedation in Japan. Despite the remarkable advances in dentistry, fear and anxiety continue to be significant deterrents for seeking dental services. Most dental procedures can fortunately be undertaken with the aid of sedation. A comprehensive survey of all the dental schools in Japan was carried out to determine what sedation practices were used in Japan. All 29 dental schools in Japan possessed a dedicated department of anesthesiology at the time of this survey. The survey attempted to determine the specific sedation methods (techniques, routes of administration, and agents used in sedation) as well as practices (monitoring, fasting, location, education, and fees involved in sedation). The results indicate that there was a broad range in sedation practices. The Japanese Dental Society of Anesthesiology may wish to examine the findings of this study and may wish to formulate guidelines appropriate for the practice of sedation in Japan. Others may also wish to compare their own practices with those of Japan.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The randomized, patient- and observer-blinded study was performed in 120 patients undergoing ear, nose and throat surgery to test the hypothesis that intravenous anaesthesia with propofol-remifentanil when compared with a balanced anaesthesia technique using isoflurane-alfentanil improves the speed of recovery, minimizes postoperative side-effects and, thus, leads to an improved quality of recovery without increasing total costs. METHODS: The total costs for each anaesthesia technique were calculated considering drug acquisition costs, personnel costs for the additional time spent in the operating room and the postanaesthesia care unit until fast-tracking eligibility, and the costs to treat the side-effects during and after operation. RESULTS: The times from the end of surgery to tracheal extubation and the time until leaving the operating room were not different between the two groups. However, more patients receiving intravenous anaesthesia (80 versus 49%) were eligible for fast tracking and thus could bypass the recovery room. This was associated with an average cost saving of 6.00 euros per patient. However, intravenous anaesthesia was associated with higher total costs (89 euros versus 78 euros) mainly because of higher acquisition costs of the anaesthetics (34.60 euros versus 16.50 euros). There was no difference in the quality of recovery as measured by a Quality of Recovery score and patient satisfaction between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The higher acquisition costs of the intravenous anaesthetics propofol and remifentanil cannot be compensated for by improved speed of recovery. This anaesthesia technique is more cost intensive than balanced anaesthesia using isoflurane and alfentanil.

[Total intravenous anesthesia. On the way to standard practice in pediatrics]. / Total intravenöse Anästhesie. Auf dem Weg zum Standardverfahren bei Kindern.

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

Total intravenous anaesthesia: is it worth the cost?

Total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) has many advocates and offers potential benefits, yet the direct costs of this technique are commonly greater than those of inhalation-based alternatives. Although many advantages are claimed for TIVA, in reality all modern anaesthetics are effective and have good safety and tolerability profiles, rendering these differences of less importance now than was perhaps once the case. The majority of direct comparisons between inhaled and intravenous anaesthetics have failed to demonstrate significant differences in recovery times, yet they have consistently shown greater direct costs associated with intravenous propofol anaesthesia. It is commonly believed that indirect costs may be offset by indirect savings achieved through more rapid recovery, reduction in adverse effects and decreased staff workloads. In some cases, these differences in outcome have not been observed, while in many where they have, indirect savings are only theoretical. Reductions in recovery time and nursing workload will only result in savings if fewer nurses are required or if the existing ones can be paid for fewer hours. Salary arrangements, peak demand for patient care, performance of multiple tasks in parallel and limitations in time accounting methodology all limit the ability to achieve such savings in reality. Drug wastage also contributes to the cost of anaesthesia and is common to both intravenous and inhaled techniques. With inhaled anaesthesia, wastage can be reduced by the use of lower fresh gas flows, which has no adverse consequences and may provide potential benefits. With intravenous anaesthesia, reducing drug wastage is difficult and potentially harmful through cross-contamination of drugs between patients. Recently, the cost of propofol has been reduced with the availability of generics, making TIVA a more attractive proposition. The costs of several inhaled anaesthetics have also decreased, however, reducing any relative benefit. Nevertheless, the net result of lowered costs is that all types of anaesthetic drugs, which typically comprise <5% of a hospital pharmacy budget, represent excellent value for money. With few new products in the immediate pipeline and most established drugs already generic or about to lose their patent protection, the expense of anaesthesia is likely to decline even further. Perhaps then we will be able to stop arguing over relatively small differences in cost and choose a technique that, in our own experienced hands, provides the best and safest patient outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND: The Narcotrend is a new electroencephalographic monitor designed to measure depth of anesthesia, based on a six-letter classification from A (awake) to F (increasing burst suppression) including 14 substages. This study was designed to investigate the impact of Narcotrend monitoring on recovery times and propofol consumption in comparison to Bispectral Index (BIS) monitoring or standard anesthetic practice. METHODS: With institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 120 adult patients scheduled to undergo minor orthopedic surgery were randomized to receive a propofol-remifentanil anesthetic controlled by Narcotrend, by BIS(R), or solely by clinical parameters. Anesthesia was induced with 0.4 micro x kg-1 x min-1 remifentanil and a propofol target-controlled infusion at 3.5 microg/ml. After intubation, remifentanil was reduced to 0.2 micro x kg-1 x min-1, whereas the propofol infusion was adjusted according to clinical parameters or to the following target values: during maintenance to D(0) (Narcotrend) or 50 (BIS); 15 min before the end of surgery to C(1) (Narcotrend) or 60 (BIS). Recovery times were recorded by a blinded investigator, and average normalized propofol consumption was calculated from induction and maintenance doses. RESULTS: The groups were comparable for demographic data, duration of anesthesia, and mean remifentanil dosages. Compared with standard practice, patients with Narcotrend or BIS monitoring needed significantly less propofol (standard practice, 6.8 +/- 1.2 mg x kg-1 x h-1 vs. Narcotrend, 4.5 +/- 1.1 mg x kg-1 x h-1 or BIS(R), 4.8 +/- 1.0 mg x kg-1 x h-1; P < 0.001), opened their eyes earlier (9.3 +/- 5.2 vs. 3.4 +/- 2.2 or 3.5 +/- 2.9 min), and were extubated sooner (9.7 +/- 5.3 vs. 3.7 +/- 2.2 or 4.1 +/- 2.9 min). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that Narcotrend and BIS monitoring are equally effective to facilitate a significant reduction of recovery times and propofol consumption when used for guidance of propofol titration during a propofol-remifentanil anesthetic.

[Pharmacoeconomical model for cost calculation using a study on prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting in the postoperative phase as an example. Cost effectiveness analysis of a tropisetron supplemented desflurane anaesthesia in comparison to a propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA)]. / Pharmakoökonomische Modelle zur Kostenberechnung dargestellt am Beispiel einer Studie zur Prophylaxe von Ubelkeit und Erbrechen in der postoperativen Phase Kosten-Wirksamkeits-Analyse einer Tropisetron-supplementierten Desfluran-Anästhesie im Vergleich zu einer Propofol-TIVA.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are among the most frequent complications after general anaesthesia. Avoiding these symptoms is of utmost importance for most patients; PONV is not only a major source of discomfort for patients but also a cause of additional costs for the patients and the health care provider. The economical impact of PONV will become even more important in the near future because the number of surgical procedures performed on an ambulatory basis is increasing. The following article gives a short overview of the terminology and measures used in pharmacoeconomical studies concerning PONV. Furthermore the economical aspects of a low-flow anaesthesia supplemented with the 5-HT(3)-antagonist tropisetron compared with a total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) using propofol are described. METHODS: For this comparison a decision analysis was performed using data of a randomised control trial on 150 female patients undergoing major gynaecological surgery. The patients were randomised to receive a total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol-alfentanil or a balanced anaesthesia with desfluran (fresh gas flow 1 l.min(-1)) supplemented by 2 mg tropisetron at the end of surgery. RESULTS: Indirect costs associated with anaesthesia using desflurane-tropisetron (4.94 Euro) are not different from that of propofol-TIVA (4.81 Euro) because of a similar incidence of PONV in the PACU. Furthermore, the total cost for 100 min general anaesthesia is higher in the desflurane-tropisetron group (30.94 Euro) compared with the TIVA group (24.55 Euro) due to the decreasing acquisition costs of propofol in the last 2 years. CONCLUSION: Total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol is more cost-efficient than balanced anaesthesia with desflurane and additional tropisetron as a prophylactic antiemetic.