Cost-effectiveness analysis of sedation and general anesthesia regimens for children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging in Japan.

PURPOSE: The anesthesiologist-directed sedation service has not been well established in Japan partly due to reimbursement issue. In this study, we compared the cost-effectiveness of sedation by non-anesthesiologists with that of sedation or general anesthesia by anesthesiologists under the Japanese medical fee schedule. METHODS: We conducted a single-center observational study with patients who required sedation or general anesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during a 12-month period. Costs per patient and failure rates of imaging were modeled in a decision analysis tree with sensitivity analysis. Costs were estimated from the health-care sector perspective. RESULTS: A total of 1546 patients were analyzed. The failure rate of sedation by non-anesthesiologists was 17.5% (264 out of 1506), whereas all the sedation and general anesthesia by anesthesiologists were successful. The cost-effectiveness analysis with setting successful sedation as outcomes showed that the mean cost per patient was 84.2 USD for sedation by anesthesiologists, followed by 74.2-92.7 USD for intravenous sedation by non-anesthesiologists, 112.1-458.3 USD for oral or rectal sedation by non-anesthesiologists, and 605.4 USD for general anesthesia by anesthesiologists. The one-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the cost per patient of sedation by a non-anesthesiologist would remain higher than that of sedation by an anesthesiologist, provided that the failure rate is over 11.3% for sedation via oral or rectal route, or over 3.6% for intravenous route, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesia-directed sedation would be more cost-effective than oral or rectal sedation by non-anesthesiologists for children undergoing MRI in the Japanese medical fee schedule.

Predicting Perioperative Respiratory Adverse Events in Children With Sleep-Disordered Breathing.

BACKGROUND: No evidence currently exists to quantify the risk and incidence of perioperative respiratory adverse events (PRAEs) in children with sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) undergoing all procedures requiring general anesthesia. Our objective was to determine the incidence of PRAEs and the risk factors in children with polysomnography-confirmed SDB undergoing procedures requiring general anesthesia. METHODS: Retrospective review of all patients with polysomnography-confirmed SDB undergoing general anesthesia from January 2009 to December 2013. Demographic and perioperative outcome variables were compared between children who experienced PRAEs and those who did not. Generalized estimating equations were used to build a predictive model of PRAEs. RESULTS: In a cohort of 393 patients, 51 PRAEs occurred during 43 (5.6%) of 771 anesthesia encounters. Using generalized estimating equations, treatment with continuous positive airway pressure or bilevel positive airway pressure (odds ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-2.54; P = .031), outpatient (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.03-1.91; P = .047), presence of severe obstructive sleep apnea (odds ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.09-2.42; P = .016), use of preoperative oxygen (odds ratio 1.82; 95% CI, 1.11-2.97; P = .017), history of prematurity (odds ratio, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.33-4.01; P = .003), and intraoperative airway management with endotracheal intubation (odds ratio, 3.03; 95% CI, 1.79-5.14; P < .001) were associated with PRAEs. CONCLUSIONS: We propose the risk factors identified within this cohort of SDB patients could be incorporated into a preoperative risk assessment tool that might better to identify the risk of PRAE during general anesthesia. Further investigation and validation of this model could contribute to improved preoperative risk stratification, decision-making (postoperative admission and level of monitoring), and health care resource allocation.

Congenital tracheal stenosis: unanticipated and anticipated difficult airway management in a neonate.

We present the case of a neonate with congenital tracheal stenosis (1.4-mm diameter) who came to the operating room as both an unanticipated and anticipated case of difficult airway management. We discuss the airway management of newborn children with congenital tracheal stenosis, and rescue options for the difficult airway in very small children.