Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic antiemetic therapy with ondansetron, droperidol, or placebo.

BACKGROUND: In an era of growing economic constraints on healthcare delivery, anesthesiologists are increasingly expected to understand cost analysis and evaluate clinical practices. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are distressing for patients and may increase costs in an ambulatory surgical unit. The authors compared the cost-effectiveness of four prophylactic intravenous regimens for PONV: 4 mg ondansetron, 0.625 mg droperidol, 1.25 mg droperidol, and placebo. METHODS: Adult surgical outpatients at high risk for PONV were studied. Study drugs were administered intravenously within 20 min of induction of nitrous oxide-isoflurane or enflurane anesthesia. A decision-tree analysis was used to group patients into 12 mutually exclusive subgroups based on treatment and outcome. Costs were calculated for the prevention and treatment of PONV. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for each group. RESULTS: Two thousand sixty-one patients were enrolled. Efficacy data for study drugs have been previously reported, and the database from that study was used for pharmacoeconomic analysis. The mean-median total cost per patient who received prophylactic treatment with 4 mg ondansetron, 0.625 mg droperidol, 1.25 mg droperidol, and placebo were $112 or $16.44, $109 or $0.63, $104 or $0.51, and $164 or $51.20, respectively (P = 0.001, active treatment groups vs. placebo). The use of a prophylactic antiemetic agent significantly increased patient satisfaction (P < 0.05). Personnel costs in managing PONV and unexpected hospital admission constitute major cost components in our analysis. Exclusion of nursing labor costs from the calculation did not alter the overall conclusions regarding the relative costs of antiemetic therapy. CONCLUSION: The use of prophylactic antiemetic therapy in high-risk ambulatory surgical patients was more effective in preventing PONV and achieved greater patient satisfaction at a lower cost compared with placebo. The use of 1.25 mg droperidol intravenously was associated with greater effectiveness, lower costs, and similar patient satisfaction compared with 0.625 mg droperidol intravenously and 4 mg ondansetron intravenously.

Anesthesia for pediatric external beam radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: For very young patients, anesthesia is often required for radiotherapy. This results in multiple exposures to anesthetic agents over a short period of time. We report a consecutive series of children anesthetized for external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). METHODS: Five hundred twelve children < or = 16 years old received EBRT from January 1983 to February 1996. Patient demographics, diagnosis, anesthesia techniques, monitoring, airway management, complications, and outcome were recorded for the patients requiring anesthesia. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three of the 512 children (24%) required 141 courses of EBRT with anesthesia. Anesthetized patients ranged in age from 20 days to 11 years (mean 2.6 +/- 1.8 ). The frequency of a child receiving EBRT and requiring anesthesia by age cohort was: < or = 1 year (96%), 1-2 years (93%), 2-3 years (80%), 3-4 years (51%), 4-5 years (36%), 5-6 years (13%), 6-7 years (11%), and 7-16 years (0.7%). Diagnoses included: primary CNS tumor (28%), retinoblastoma (27%), neuroblastoma (20%), acute leukemia (9%), rhabdomyosarcoma (6%), and Wilms' tumor (4%). Sixty-three percent of the patients had been exposed to chemotherapy prior to EBRT. The mean number of anesthesia sessions per patient was 22 +/- 16. Seventy-eight percent of the treatment courses were once daily and 22% were twice daily. Anesthesia techniques included: short-acting barbiturate induction + inhalation maintenance (21%), inhalation only (20%), ketamine (19%), propofol only (12%), propofol induction + inhalation maintenance (7%), ketamine induction + inhalation maintenance (6%), ketamine or short-acting barbiturate induction + inhalation maintenance (6%). Monitoring techniques included: EKG (95%), O2 saturation (93%), fraction of inspired O2 (57%), and end-tidal CO2 (55%). Sixty-four percent of patients had central venous access. Eleven of the 74 children with a central line developed sepsis (15%): 6 of the 11 were anesthetized with propofol (55%), 4 with a short-acting barbiturate induction plus inhalation maintenance (36%), and 1 with inhalation alone (9%). Eight of the 11 (73%) received prior chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Anesthesia was generally necessary at < or = 3 years, and rarely required at > 5 years of age. Sepsis associated with frequent use of the central venous access line was seen in 15% of the patients with these lines.

A comparison of the efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction of ondansetron versus droperidol as antiemetics for elective outpatient surgical procedures. S3A-409 and S3A-410 Study Groups.

UNLABELLED: Two identical, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies enrolled 2061 adult surgical outpatients at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) to compare i.v. ondansetron 4 mg with droperidol 0.625 mg and droperidol 1.25 mg for the prevention of PONV. The antiemetic drugs or placebo were administered i.v. 20 min before the induction of anesthesia with a barbiturate compound, followed by maintenance with N2O/isoflurane/enflurane. Nausea, emetic episodes, adverse events, and patient satisfaction were analyzed for the 0 to 2 h and 0 to 24 h postoperative periods. In the 0 to 2 h postoperative period, there was a complete response (no emesis or rescue antiemetic) in 46% of subjects given placebo (P < 0.05 versus antiemetic groups), in 62% given ondansetron, in 63% given droperidol 0.625 mg, and in 69% given droperidol 1.25 mg (P < 0.05 versus ondansetron). In the 0 to 24-h postoperative period, there were no significant differences in complete response between the ondansetron and droperidol 0.625 or 1.25 mg groups; all groups remained superior to placebo. The proportion of patients without nausea during the 0 to 24 h postoperative period was greater in the antiemetic groups compared with the placebo group; however, droperidol 1.25 mg was more effective than ondansetron 4 mg or droperidol 0.625 mg (43% vs 29% or 29%, respectively). Headache incidence was higher in the ondansetron group compared with either droperidol group. Patient satisfaction scores did not differ significantly among antiemetic treatment groups, although all were superior to placebo. In conclusion, all antiemetic treatment regimens were superior to placebo for the prevention of PONV in the immediate postoperative period; however, droperidol 1.25 mg was more efficacious than ondansetron during the early recovery period (0-2 h). There were no significant differences between ondansetron and either droperidol dose for emesis prevention during the 0 to 24 h postoperative period. IMPLICATIONS: More than 2000 patients at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting were given either placebo, ondansetron 4 mg, or droperidol 0.625 mg or 1.25 mg i.v. before the administration of general anesthesia. After surgery, the incidence of nausea, vomiting, medication side effects, and patient satisfaction were evaluated for 24 h. Droperidol 0.625 or 1.25 mg i.v. compared favorably with ondansetron 4 mg i.v. for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery.