A cost comparison of methohexital and propofol for ambulatory anesthesia.

UNLABELLED: Methohexital is eliminated more rapidly than thiopental, and early recovery compares favorably with propofol. We designed this study to evaluate the recovery profile when methohexital was used as an alternative to propofol for the induction of anesthesia before either sevoflurane or desflurane in combination with nitrous oxide. One hundred twenty patients were assigned randomly to one of four anesthetic groups: (I) methohexital-desflurane, (II) methohexital-sevoflurane, (III) propofol-desflurane, or (IV) propofol-sevoflurane. Recovery times after the anesthetic drugs, as well as the perioperative side effect profiles, were similar in all four groups. A cost-minimization analysis revealed that methohexital was less costly for the induction of anesthesia. At the fresh gas flow rates used during this study, the costs of the volatile anesthetics for maintenance of anesthesia did not differ among the four groups. However, at low flow rates (< or = 1 L/min), the methohexital-desflurane group would have been the least expensive anesthetic technique. In conclusion, methohexital is a cost-effective alternative to propofol for the induction of anesthesia in the ambulatory setting. At low fresh gas flow rates, the methohexital-desflurane combination was the most cost-effective for the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia. IMPLICATIONS: Using methohexital as an alternative to propofol for the induction of anesthesia for ambulatory surgery seems to reduce drug costs. When fresh gas flow rates < or = 1 L/min are used, the combination of methohexital for the induction and desflurane for maintenance may be the most cost-effective general anesthetic technique for ambulatory surgery.

The cost-effectiveness of methohexital versus propofol for sedation during monitored anesthesia care.

UNLABELLED: We designed this study to test the hypothesis that methohexital is a cost-effective alternative to propofol for sedation during local anesthesia. Sixty consenting women undergoing breast biopsy procedures under local anesthesia were randomly assigned to receive an infusion of either propofol (50 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) or methohexital (40 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)). The sedative infusion rate was titrated to maintain an observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) score of 3 (with 1 = awake/alert to 5 = asleep). Fentanyl 25 microg i.v. was administered as a "rescue" analgesic during the operation. We assessed the level of sedation (OAA/S score), vital signs, time to achieve an OAA/S score of 3 at the onset and a score of 1 after discontinuing the infusion, discharge times, perioperative side effects, and patient satisfaction. The direct cost of methohexital was lower than that of propofol, based on the milligram dosage infused during the operation. The sedative onset (to achieve an OAA/S score of 3) and the recovery (to return to an OAA/S score of 1) times, as well as discharge times, did not differ between the two groups. Patients receiving methohexital had a significantly lower incidence of pain on initial injection compared with those receiving propofol (10% vs 23%). Because the use of methohexital (29.4 +/- 2.7 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) for sedation during breast biopsy procedures has a similar efficacy and recovery profile to that of propofol (36.8 +/- 15.9 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) and is less costly based on the amount infused, it seems to be a cost-effective alternative to propofol for sedation during local anesthesia. However, when the cost of the drug infused and drug wasted was calculated, there was no difference in the overall drug cost. IMPLICATIONS: When administered to maintain a stable level of sedation during local anesthesia, methohexital is an acceptable alternative to propofol. However, the overall drug costs were similar with the two drugs.

Cost effectiveness of administration of intravenous anesthetics for direct-current cardioversion by nonanesthesiologists.

Well-trained nonanesthesiologists can safely and effectively administer IV anesthetics for cardioversion. This practice results in considerable cost savings without compromising patient care.

Normalized demand for drugs and other reinforcers.

The concepts of behavioral economics have proven to be useful for understanding the environmental control of overall levels of responding for a variety of commodities, including reinforcement by drug self-administration. These general concepts have implications for the assessment of abuse liability and drug abuse intervention and the formulation of public policy on drug abuse. An essential requirement is the ability to compare the demand for different drugs directly in order to assess relative abuse liability, and to compare demand for the same drug under different environmental and biological interventions to assess their ability to reduce demand. Until now, such comparisons were hampered by the confounding effect of varying drug doses and potencies that prevent quantitative comparisons of demand elasticity--sensitivity of consumption and responding to the constraint of price (effort). In this paper we describe a procedure to normalize demand-curve analysis that permits dose- and potency-independent comparisons of demand across drugs. The procedure is shown to be effective for comparing drug demand within and across the drug classes. The technique permits a quantitative ordering of demand that is consistent with the peak levels of responding maintained by the drugs. The same technique is generalized for the comparison of other types of reinforcers under different biological conditions.

A comparison of propofol with methohexital and isoflurane in two general anesthetic techniques.

The purpose of this study was to compare two general anesthetic techniques involving oral intubation for use in outpatient third molar surgery. Fifty American Society of Anesthesiologists I or II patients were randomly allocated to two groups. Group 1 received methohexital, isoflurane, nitrous oxide, and alfentanil, while group 2 received propofol, alfentanil, and nitrous oxide. An analysis of the results showed that although the technique used in group 2 cost more, had a slightly longer induction time, and produced a similar duration of apnea, it did not cause significant hypotension (as previously reported), and had a significantly better overall recovery. It was concluded that the use of propofol in the outpatient surgery setting may be a valuable addition to the oral and maxillofacial surgeon's anesthetic armamentarium.

Titration of intravenous anesthetics for cardioversion: a comparison of propofol, methohexital, and midazolam.

OBJECTIVE: To compare propofol, methohexital, and midazolam administered as titrated infusions for sedation during electrical cardioversion. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, single-blind comparative study. SETTING: Coronary care unit in a military teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Thirty adult patients with atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, or paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia. Each patient required electrical cardioversion. Patients were randomized to receive one of the three study drugs. Ten patients composed one drug group. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Demographic variables were similar between groups. Patients were randomized to receive propofol (10 mg/mL), methohexital (5 mg/mL), or midazolam (0.5 mg/mL) administered at 10 mL/min until the patients failed to follow verbal commands and demonstrated a degradation of the lid response to stimulation. Dose requirements (mean +/- SD) were propofol 1.69 +/- 0.46 mg/kg, methohexital 1.07 +/- 0.34 mg/kg, and midazolam 0.16 +/- 0.06 mg/kg. Hemodynamic assessment at baseline, after induction, after cardioversion, and at recovery demonstrated no difference in mean arterial pressure between the three groups. The time to awakening was significantly prolonged in the group that received midazolam (33 +/- 11 mins, p < .05) as compared with the times of the groups that received propofol (11 +/- 4 mins) and methohexital (9 +/- 3 min). Side-effects were similar between groups, with the exception of an increase in pain on injection with propofol and an increased frequency of confusion in those patients receiving midazolam. Recall of the electrical discharges at one hour after the procedure occurred in two patients in the propofol group. In both cases, there were technical problems which caused the duration of the procedure to extend into the anticipated recovery period. Unit dose costs at our institution for a 70-kg patient are: methohexitol, $3.14 (500-mg bottle); medazolam, $14.88 (5-mg vials x 3); and propofol, $6.60 (200-mg ampule). CONCLUSIONS: All three drugs are acceptable choices for use during elective direct-current cardioversion. Titration of the agent results in a total drug dose which is usually less than the typical induction dose. There were no significant differences in the hemodynamic actions of these drugs at any time interval. Both propofol and methohexital proved superior in their ability to provide a more rapid anesthetic onset and recovery as compared with midazolam. Propofol offers the advantage of requiring no premixing or dilution, and it is not a controlled substance, although it does result in more pain on injection.

A comparison of propofol, midazolam, and methohexital for sedation during retrobulbar and peribulbar block.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of propofol, methohexital, and midazalom in providing adequate sedation during administration of retrobulbar block and satisfactory postoperative amnesia. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review over a 4-month period. SETTING: Ambulatory patients in the main operating room of a university-affiliated hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred forty-seven ambulatory patients undergoing ophthalmologic surgery of less than 2 hours' duration under regional anesthesia consisting of retrobulbar or peribulbar block and intravenous (IV) sedation. INTERVENTIONS: One of three drugs--propofol 0.47 +/- 0.06 mg/kg, midazolam 0.02 +/- 0.005 mg/kg, or methohexital 0.45 +/- 0.16 mg/kg--was administered IV. Patients were observed for a minimum of 60 seconds or until adequate sedation was achieved, after which a retrobulbar or peribulbar block was performed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Blood pressure, electrocardiogram, and oxygen saturation were monitored and recorded. Patients were observed for apnea, hiccups, pain on injection, excitement, tremor, grimacing, or verbal response during the block. The requirement for additional sedation intraoperatively was noted. Patients were questioned postoperatively in the ambulatory recovery room for recall of needle insertion or discomfort during the block, as well as about their satisfaction with the overall experience. CONCLUSIONS: Grimacing or verbal response during the retrobulbar or peribulbar block did not predict or correlate with patient recall. Propofol was equal to both midazolam and methohexital in providing adequate sedation and postoperative amnesia but possesses the added advantages of reduced postoperative vomiting, lower intraocular pressure, and earlier return-to-home readiness.