Regional determinants for outcome and cost of status epilepticus.

OBJECTIVE: Status epilepticus (SE) requires informed management. Since regional differences exist in practice and outcome, we aimed to characterize the epidemiology of SE and identify the factors associated with cost-effective management at the sole level IV epilepsy center of Central New York (CNY). METHODS: We searched for patients aged 18 years or older admitted at our center's hospitals from February 2018 to November 2019 with the discharge diagnosis of SE. Seventy-seven individuals with definite SE were included. We constructed models to determine the main factors that impact the refractoriness of SE, the clinical outcome, and the estimated cost of hospitalization. RESULTS: The rate of SE-related disability was 20.8% and the all-cause mortality 36.4%. Our analysis showed that initial anti-seizure medication (ASM) choice did not have a significant influence on the clinical outcome; nor did it affect the refractoriness of SE. Likewise, our anesthetic regimen did not alter the disease course or outcome. In line with prior studies, we demonstrated that age carried a negative predictive value to the SE-related disability and mortality (CI95% [-0.02, 0], p < 0.001). Interestingly, we found that use of midazolam (CI95% [-20.8, -0.08], p = 0.05) and anoxic brain injury as the underlying etiology (CI95% [-33.5, -1.59], p = 0.03) were marginally associated with shorter hospitalizations and reduced cost. The latter might reflect the rapidly-deteriorating course of anoxic brain injury, complicated by its higher likelihood of refractoriness (CI95% [0.14, 0.79], p = 0.006), and consequently, the decision to withdraw care. CONCLUSION: Taken together, we described the demographics, management, and prognosis of SE locally and further defined the potential determinants for the cost-effective care. We found that similar to other studies, age was the main determinant factor in prognosis. We also noticed that midazolam usage was associated with shorter hospital stay, suggesting that strategic use of midazolam may reduce the direct cost of management of SE. These findings can be adopted to optimize SE management in CNY.

Efficacy and cost analysis of intravenous conscious sedation for long oral surgery procedures.

The aim of this study was to determine what is considered a long oral surgery and conduct a cost-effective analysis of sedative agents used for intravenous sedation (IVS) and sedation protocols for such procedures. Pubmed and Google Scholar databases were used to identify human studies employing IVS for extractions and implant-related surgeries, between 2003 and July/2023. Sedation protocols and procedure lengths were documented. Sedative satisfaction, operator satisfaction, and sedation assessment were also recorded. Cost estimation was based on The British National Formulary (BNF). To assess bias, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools were employed. This review identified 29 randomised control trials (RCT), six cohorts, 14 case-series, and one case-control study. The study defined long procedures with an average duration of 31.33 minutes for extractions and 79.37 minutes for implant-related surgeries. Sedative agents identified were midazolam, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam. Cost analysis revealed midazolam as the most cost-effective option (<10 pence per procedure per patient) and propofol the most expensive option (approximately £46.39). Bias analysis indicated varying degrees of bias in the included studies. Due to diverse outcome reporting, a comparative network approach was employed and revealed benefits of using dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam over midazolam. Midazolam, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam demonstrated safety and efficacy as sedative agents for conscious IVS in extended procedures like extractions or implant-related surgeries. While midazolam is the most cost-effective option, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam offer subjective and clinical benefits. The relatively higher cost of propofol may impede its widespread use. Dexmedetomidine and remimazolam stand out as closely priced options, necessitating further clinical investigations for comparative efficacy assessment.

Procedural sedation for direct current cardioversion: a feasibility study between two management strategies in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: A cardiologist-only approach to procedural sedation with midazolam in the setting of elective cardioversion (DCC) for AF has already been proven as safe as sedation with propofol and anaesthesiologist assistance. No data exist regarding the safety of such a strategy during emergency procedures. The aim of this study is to compare the feasibility of sedation with midazolam, administered by a cardiologist, to an anaesthesiologist-assisted protocol with propofol in emergency DCC. METHODS: Single centre, prospective, open blinded, randomized study including all consecutive patients admitted to the Emergency Department requiring urgent or emergency DCC. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either propofol or midazolam treatment arm. Patients in the midazolam group were managed by the cardiologist only, while patients treated with propofol group underwent DCC with anaesthesiologist assistance. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were enrolled and split into two groups. Eighteen patients (26.1%) experienced peri-procedural adverse events (bradycardia, severe hypotension and severe hypoxia), which were similar between the two groups and all successfully managed by the cardiologist. No deaths, stroke or need for invasive ventilation were registered. Patients treated with propofol experienced a greater decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure when compared with those treated with midazolam. As the procedure was shorter when midazolam was used, the median cost of urgent/emergency DCC with midazolam was estimated to be 129.0 € (1st-3rd quartiles 114.6-151.6) and 195.6 € (1st-3rd quartiles 147.3-726.7) with propofol (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Procedural sedation with midazolam given by the cardiologist alone was feasible, well-tolerated and cost-effective in emergency DCC.

Midazolam vs diazepam in prolonged seizures in children: A pharmacoeconomic approach.

OBJECTIVE: A previous European cost-utility study reported that use of buccal midazolam in the community setting for the treatment of prolonged seizures (ie, seizures lasting ≥5 minutes) in children was associated with an overall €12 507 399 reduction in annual costs charged to the Italian national health service compared with rectal diazepam. We re-evaluated these findings by applying a more conservative approach. METHODS: The Italian Delphi panel reconvened to apply a more conservative assessment of available reports. A decision-tree model was used, allowing for different treatment pathways depending on whether or not a caregiver administers treatment, an ambulance is required for transport of the child to hospital, and an inpatient stay is required. Direct medical costs were derived from Italian healthcare system data. Estimates of the annual number of prolonged tonic-clonic seizures expected in the country were based on studies which assessed seizure duration using video-EEG recordings and medical records. RESULTS: Although drug acquisition costs were greater for buccal midazolam than for rectal diazepam, the acquisition cost difference was outweighed by larger cost savings resulting mostly from a reduction in hospital admissions. Assuming that 1.2% of tonic and/or clonic seizures occurring in children and adolescents over a 12-month period are prolonged, the annual nationwide reduction in costs from preferring buccal midazolam to rectal diazepam was estimated at €3 577 587.9. CONCLUSIONS: In this more conservative revised analysis, the high cost of buccal midazolam is still counteracted by greater cost savings compared with rectal diazepam, but cost reduction was less than previously estimated.

Healthcare Utilization Characteristics for Intranasal Midazolam Versus Rectal Diazepam.

To investigate connections between patient demographics, health care utilization, prescription use, and refills for patients using intranasal midazolam, per rectum diazepam, or both. A retrospective cohort contained patients with epilepsy prescribed intranasal midazolam, per rectum diazepam, or both. We analyzed number of emergency department visits, ambulance services, urgent care visits, and unplanned hospitalizations. A total of 5458 patients were identified. Patients on intranasal midazolam had on average 1.53 fewer emergency department visits (95% confidence interval 1.16-1.89, P < .0001), 0.29 fewer uses of ambulance services (95% confidence interval 0.17-0.41, P < .0001), and 0.60 fewer urgent care visits (95% confidence interval 0.36-0.83, P < .0001) compared to patients in the per rectum diazepam group. Patients with commercial insurance were more likely to have intranasal midazolam prescription (odds ratio = 1.73, 95% confidence interval 1.42-2.11, P < .0001). The results substantiate the cost-effective benefits of prescribing intranasal midazolam compared to per rectum diazepam because several aspects of health care utilization were decreased in those using intranasal midazolam.

A Novel Anesthetic Technique for PEVAR.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (PEVAR) continues to evolve. Device profiles continue to decline, further reducing the physiological insult of the procedure. Anesthesia, however, has not evolved with a large proportion of patients continuing to receive general anesthesia for their increasingly less invasive procedures. We report on a novel anesthetic technique providing outstanding anesthesia in patients undergoing PEVAR in an outpatient setting. The total anesthesia used was remarkably cost effective. METHODS: Six patients underwent PEVAR in an outpatient setting. The patients received moderate intravenous (IV) access sedation using versed and fentanyl in combination with bilateral ilioinguinal nerve blocks. Patients received 25 mL bilaterally of 0.5% bupivicaine with epinephrine. All patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists class III. None received central venous access, arterial, or urinary catheters. Standard noninvasive monitoring was used. A board-certified anesthesiologist was present at all times during the procedures. RESULTS: All patients underwent successful repair. Average cost per case for anesthetic supplies averaged around $7.00. The fentanyl dose ranged from 100 to 200 µg with an average dose of 130 µg. Versed dose ranged from 2 to 3 mg with an average dose of 2.4 mg. No patient required conversion to general anesthesia. Postoperative pain relief was excellent. Two patients required pain medication before discharge. Two patients required oral narcotic analgesic the night of discharge. No patients required narcotics after that time. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral ilioinguinal nerve block, when combined with moderate IV sedation allows outstanding anesthesia for patients undergoing PEVAR. This novel combination has not been reported previously. The technique provides safe, effective, care for of a subset of patients not requiring general anesthesia. It offers a greatly reduced cost when compared with general anesthesia. Additional benefits include prolonged pain relief perioperatively as well as potentially decreasing the physiologic and cognitive effects seen with general anesthesia.

Diazepam or midazolam for orotracheal intubation in the ICU?

OBJECTIVE: to compare clinical and cost effectiveness of midazolam and diazepam for urgent intubation. METHODS: patients admitted to the Central ICU of the Santa Casa Hospital Complex in Porto Alegre, over the age of 18 years, undergoing urgent intubation during 6 months were eligible. Patients were randomized in a single-blinded manner to either intravenous diazepam or midazolam. Diazepam was given as a 5 mg intravenous bolus followed by aliquots of 5 mg each minute. Midazolam was given as an intravenous bolus of 5 mg with further aliquots of 2.5 mg each minute. Ramsay sedation scale 5-6 was considered adequate sedation. We recorded time and required doses to reach adequate sedation and duration of sedation. RESULTS: thirty four patients were randomized, but one patient in the diazepam group was excluded because data were lost. Both groups were similar in terms of illness severity and demographics. Time for adequate sedation was shorter (132 ± 87 sec vs. 224 ± 117 sec, p = 0.016) but duration of sedation was similar (86 ± 67 min vs. 88 ± 50 min, p = 0.936) for diazepam in comparison to midazolam. Total drug dose to reach adequate sedation after either drugs was similar (10.0 [10.0-12.5] mg vs. 15.0 [10.0-17.5] mg, p = 0.248). Arterial pressure and sedation intensity reduced similarly overtime with both drugs. Cost of sedation was lower for diazepam than for midazolam (1.4[1.4-1.8] vs. 13.9[9.4-16.2] reais, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: intubation using intravenous diazepam and midazolam is effective and well tolerated. Sedation with diazepam is associated to a quicker sedation time and to lower costs.

Dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation with propofol or midazolam in intensive care: an economic evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Dexmedetomidine was shown in two European randomized double-blind double-dummy trials (PRODEX and MIDEX) to be non-inferior to propofol and midazolam in maintaining target sedation levels in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Additionally, dexmedetomidine shortened the time to extubation versus both standard sedatives, suggesting that it may reduce ICU resource needs and thus lower ICU costs. Considering resource utilization data from these two trials, we performed a secondary, cost-minimization analysis assessing the economics of dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation. METHODS: The total ICU costs associated with each study sedative were calculated on the basis of total study sedative consumption and the number of days patients remained intubated, required non-invasive ventilation, or required ICU care without mechanical ventilation. The daily unit costs for these three consecutive ICU periods were set to decline toward discharge, reflecting the observed reduction in mean daily Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) points between the periods. A number of additional sensitivity analyses were performed, including one in which the total ICU costs were based on the cumulative sum of daily TISS points over the ICU period, and two further scenarios, with declining direct variable daily costs only. RESULTS: Based on pooled data from both trials, sedation with dexmedetomidine resulted in lower total ICU costs than using the standard sedatives, with a difference of €2,656 in the median (interquartile range) total ICU costs-€11,864 (€7,070 to €23,457) versus €14,520 (€7,871 to €26,254)-and €1,649 in the mean total ICU costs. The median (mean) total ICU costs with dexmedetomidine compared with those of propofol or midazolam were €1,292 (€747) and €3,573 (€2,536) lower, respectively. The result was robust, indicating lower costs with dexmedetomidine in all sensitivity analyses, including those in which only direct variable ICU costs were considered. The likelihood of dexmedetomidine resulting in lower total ICU costs compared with pooled standard care was 91.0% (72.4% versus propofol and 98.0% versus midazolam). CONCLUSIONS: From an economic point of view, dexmedetomidine appears to be a preferable option compared with standard sedatives for providing light to moderate ICU sedation exceeding 24 hours. The savings potential results primarily from shorter time to extubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00479661 (PRODEX), NCT00481312 (MIDEX).

Diazepam or midazolam for orotracheal intubation in the ICU? / Diazepam ou midazolam para entubação orotraqueal na UTI?

Objective: to compare clinical and cost effectiveness of midazolam and diazepam for urgent intubation. Methods: patients admitted to the Central ICU of the Santa Casa Hospital Complex in Porto Alegre, over the age of 18 years, undergoing urgent intubation during 6 months were eligible. Patients were randomized in a single-blinded manner to either intravenous diazepam or midazolam. Diazepam was given as a 5 mg intravenous bolus followed by aliquots of 5 mg each minute. Midazolam was given as an intravenous bolus of 5 mg with further aliquots of 2.5 mg each minute. Ramsay sedation scale 5-6 was considered adequate sedation. We recorded time and required doses to reach adequate sedation and duration of sedation. Results: thirty four patients were randomized, but one patient in the diazepam group was excluded because data were lost. Both groups were similar in terms of illness severity and demographics. Time for adequate sedation was shorter (132 ± 87 sec vs. 224 ± 117 sec, p = 0.016) but duration of sedation was similar (86 ± 67 min vs. 88 ± 50 min, p = 0.936) for diazepam in comparison to midazolam. Total drug dose to reach adequate sedation after either drugs was similar (10.0 [10.0-12.5] mg vs. 15.0 [10.0-17.5] mg, p = 0.248). Arterial pressure and sedation intensity reduced similarly overtime with both drugs. Cost of sedation was lower for diazepam than for midazolam (1.4[1.4-1.8] vs. 13.9[9.4-16.2] reais, p <0.001). Conclusions: intubation using intravenous diazepam and midazolam is effective and well tolerated. Sedation with diazepam is associated to a quicker sedation time and to lower costs. .

Objetivo: comparar eficácia clínica e custo de midazolam e diazepam para intubação urgente. Métodos: pacientes internados na UTI Central do Complexo Hospitalar Santa Casa de Porto Alegre, >18 anos de idade e submetidos a entubação urgente durante seis meses eram elegíveis. Pacientes foram randomizados para receber diazepam ou midazolam intravenoso. Diazepam foi dado como bolus IV de 5 mg seguido por alíquotas de 5 mg a cada minuto. Midazolam foi dado como um bolus IV de 5 mg, com alíquotas adicionais de 2,5 mg a cada minuto. Escala de sedação de Ramsay 5-6 foi considerada sedação adequada. Registramos tempo e doses necessárias para atingir sedação adequada e sua duração. Resultados: trinta e quatro pacientes foram randomizados; um paciente no grupo diazepam foi excluído por perda dos dados. Grupos foram semelhantes para gravidade da doença e demografia. Tempo de sedação adequada foi mais curto (132 ± 87 vs. 224 ± 117 segundos, p = 0,016), mas a duração da sedação foi similar (86 ± 67 vs. 88 ± 50 min., p = 0,936) para o diazepam em comparação com o midazolam. Dose total da droga para atingir a sedação adequada foi semelhante para ambas as drogas (10,0 [10,0-12,5] vs. 15,0 [10,0-17,5] mg, p = 0,248). Pressão arterial e intensidade da sedação reduziram da mesma forma para ambas as drogas ao longo do tempo. O custo da sedação foi menor para diazepam do que para midazolam (1,4[1,4-1,8] vs. 13,9[9,4-16,2] reais, p < 0,001). Conclusões: entubação usando diazepam e midazolam intravenosos é eficaz e bem tolerada. Sedação com diazepam está associada a sedação mais rápida e menores custos. .

Feasibility of a cardiologist-only approach to sedation for electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: a randomized, open-blinded, prospective study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Sedation with propofol should be administered by personnel trained in advanced airway management. To overcome this limitation, the use of short acting benzodiazepines by cardiologists spread widely, causing concerns about the safety of this procedure in the absence of anesthesiology assistance. The aim of the study was to compare feasibility of a cardiologist-only approach with an anesthesiologist-assisted sedation protocol during elective direct-current cardioversion (DCC) of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: This prospective, open-blinded, randomized study included 204 patients, which were admitted for scheduled cardioversion of persistent AF, and randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either propofol or midazolam treatment arm. Patients in the propofol group underwent DCC with anesthesiologist assistance, while patients in the midazolam group saw the cardiologist as the only responsible for both sedation and DCC. RESULTS: Twenty-three adverse events occurred: 13 in the propofol group and 10 in the midazolam group (p=NS). Most of them were related to bradyarrhythmias and respiratory depressions. There was no need of intubation or other advanced resuscitation techniques in any of these patients. No differences were found regarding procedure tolerability and safety endpoints between the two groups. DCC procedures with anesthesiology support were burdened by higher delay from scheduled time and higher costs. CONCLUSIONS: Sedation with midazolam administered by cardiologist-only appears to be as safe as sedation with propofol and anesthesiologist assistance. Adverse events were few in both groups and easily handled by the cardiologist alone. A cardiologist-only approach to sedation provides less procedural delay, thus being easier to schedule and correlated with fewer costs.

Midazolam and propofol used alone or sequentially for long-term sedation in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients: a prospective, randomized study.

INTRODUCTION: Midazolam and propofol used alone for long-term sedation are associated with adverse effects. Sequential use may reduce the adverse effects, and lead to faster recovery, earlier extubation and lower costs. This study evaluates the effects, safety, and cost of midazolam, propofol, and their sequential use for long-term sedation in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: A total of 135 patients who required mechanical ventilation for >3 days were randomly assigned to receive midazolam (group M), propofol (group P), or sequential use of both (group M-P). In group M-P, midazolam was switched to propofol until the patients passed the spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) safety screen. The primary endpoints included recovery time, extubation time and mechanical ventilation time. The secondary endpoints were pharmaceutical cost, total cost of ICU stay, and recollection to mechanical ventilation-related events. RESULTS: The incidence of agitation following cessation of sedation in group M-P was lower than group M (19.4% versus 48.7%, P = 0.01). The mean percentage of adequate sedation and duration of sedation were similar in the three groups. The recovery time, extubation time and mechanical ventilation time of group M were 58.0 (interquartile range (IQR), 39.0) hours, 45.0 (IQR, 24.5) hours, and 192.0 (IQR, 124.0) hours, respectively; these were significantly longer than the other groups, while they were similar between the other two groups. In the treatment-received analysis, ICU duration was longer in group M than group M-P (P = 0.016). Using an intention-to-treat analysis and a treatment-received analysis, respectively, the pharmaceutical cost of group M-P was lower than group P (P <0.01) and its ICU cost was lower than group M (P <0.01; P = 0.015). The proportion of group M-P with unbearable memory of the uncomfortable events was lower than in group M (11.7% versus 25.0%, P <0.01), while the proportion with no memory was similar (P >0.05). The incidence of hypotension in group M-P was lower than group (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Sequential use of midazolam and propofol was a safe and effective sedation protocol, with higher clinical effectiveness and better cost-benefit ratio than midazolam or propofol used alone, for long-term sedation of critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01173443. Registered 25 February 2014.

[Cost-effectiveness of buccal midazolam in the treatment of prolonged convulsive seizures in the outpatient setting in Spain]. / Coste-efectividad de una solucion bucal de midazolam en el tratamiento de las crisis convulsivas prolongadas en el entorno ambulatorio en España.

INTRODUCTION: To be able to treat prolonged epileptic crises practical, safe and effective rescue medication is needed. Today, the standard treatment in community healthcare is rectal diazepam. The introduction of a buccal solution of midazolam opens up a new perspective in their treatment. AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of buccal midazolam with respect to rectal diazepam for children diagnosed with epilepsy who present prolonged convulsive seizures in the community setting in Spain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study produces a model of its cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (SNS), with the outcomes presented in terms of cost-quality adjusted life years. Data were collected from different sources, including estimations regarding the clinical effectiveness from a clinical trial, from a Delphi panel in Spain and from a national survey carried out on parents of children with epilepsy in order to determine the current practices. RESULTS: Treatment with buccal midazolam produces a saving in costs in comparison to rectal diazepam. The amount saved by the Spanish SNS comes to 5,484 euros per patient per year. Treatment with buccal midazolam offers an improved health-related quality of life. This, together with the savings in costs, means that there is a dominance of buccal midazolam over rectal diazepam in all the settings that have been examined. CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained with the model show that buccal midazolam is more cost-effective than rectal diazepam due to a reduction in the need to call out ambulances and for stays in hospital, as well as an improved health-related quality of life.

TITLE: Coste-efectividad de una solucion bucal de midazolam en el tratamiento de las crisis convulsivas prolongadas en el entorno ambulatorio en España.Introduccion. El tratamiento de las crisis epilepticas prolongadas requiere disponer de una medicacion de rescate comoda, segura y efectiva. Actualmente, el tratamiento estandar en la comunidad es el diacepam rectal. La introduccion de una solucion bucal de midazolam abre una perspectiva nueva en el tratamiento. Objetivo. Evaluar el coste-efectividad del midazolam bucal respecto al diacepam rectal para los niños con un diagnostico de epilepsia que presentan crisis convulsivas prolongadas en la comunidad en España. Materiales y metodos. Modelo coste-efectividad desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud (SNS) español, con resultados presentados en terminos de costes y años de vida ajustados por calidad. Los datos se obtuvieron de varias fuentes, incluidas las estimaciones de efectividad clinica de un ensayo clinico, de un panel Delphi en España y de una encuesta nacional a padres de niños con epilepsia para determinar las practicas actuales. Resultados. El tratamiento con midazolam bucal produce un ahorro de costes en comparacion con el diacepam rectal. El ahorro para el SNS español es de 5.484 euros por paciente al año. El tratamiento con midazolam bucal ofrece una mejora en la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud. Esto, unido al ahorro de costes, hace que el midazolam bucal sea dominante frente al diacepam rectal en todos los escenarios examinados. Conclusion. Los resultados del modelo muestran que el midazolam bucal es mas coste-efectivo que el diacepam rectal debido a una reduccion en la necesidad de llamadas a la ambulancia y estancias en el hospital, asi como a una mejora en la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud.

The cost effectiveness of licensed oromucosal midazolam (Buccolam(®)) for the treatment of children experiencing acute epileptic seizures: an approach when trial evidence is limited.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, two treatment options are used for acute epileptic seizures in the community-rectal diazepam and unlicensed buccal midazolam. In practice, the former is rarely used, with unlicensed buccal midazolam being widely recommended and prescribed by physicians. In September 2011, Buccolam(®) (licensed midazolam oromucosal solution) became the first medicine to receive a Paediatric-Use Marketing Authorization (PUMA) and it is indicated for the treatment of prolonged, acute, convulsive seizures by caregivers in the community for children (aged 6 months to <18 years) diagnosed with epilepsy. The approval process for a PUMA product differs from other marketing authorization processes and may be based upon small population subsets and may not, in some cases, require new safety or efficacy data to be generated; a similar situation to that seen for orphan drugs. This can lead to challenges when conducting economic evaluations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of Buccolam(®) for children with a diagnosis of epilepsy suffering prolonged, acute, convulsive seizures occurring in the UK community setting. DESIGN AND PERSPECTIVE: A hybrid model was developed according to a UK payer perspective. The model included a time-to-event simulation for the frequency and location of occurrence of seizures, along with a decision-tree model that assessed the treatment pathway when a seizure occured. The model compared treatment with Buccolam(®) with standard care in the community (95 % unlicensed buccal midazolam and 5 % rectal diazepam) or either treatment alone. The model was informed by data from a variety of sources, including clinical effectiveness estimates, and costs based on published UK data, using 2012-13 prices, where possible. To determine current practice and real-world effectiveness, a Delphi panel and a survey of parents of children with epilepsy were conducted. RESULTS: Buccolam(®) showed a reduction in costs of £2,939 compared with standard care, £14,269 compared with rectal diazepam alone and £886 compared with unlicensed buccal midazolam alone. Increases of 0.025, 0.082 and 0.013 quality-adjusted life-years, respectively, were also seen. Buccolam(®) remained dominant across a range of scenario analyses. CONCLUSION: This model demonstrates the possibility of constructing a thorough economic case when trial or real-world data are not available. The results of the model show Buccolam(®) to be cost saving compared with rectal diazepam due to a reduction in the need for ambulance callouts and hospital stays, and compared with unlicensed buccal midazolam, through reduced drug costs and wastage.

[Economic and clinical impact of a controlled sedation procedure in an intensive care unit]. / Impact clinique et économique d'une politique de contrôle de la sédation par protocole dans un service de réanimation médicochirurgicale.

OBJECTIVE: Since the last consensus conducted by Sfar/SRLF, the use of protocol for sedation became the reference in our ICUs. Decrease in length of stay and length of mechanical ventilation with used of these protocols have been already described. We would like to investigate the economic impact associated. STUDY DESIGN: Using the PMSI data, we studied retrospectively, the economic effect, one year before and one year after protocol implementation in our ICU. METHOD: The economic evaluation compared the cost of sedation but also the cost of mechanical ventilation and length of stay in ICU. RESULTS: Characteristic and number of patients were equivalent during the two years. We described a significant decrease in length of mechanical ventilation (8.8 vs. 8.4; p<0.05) but not in length of stay (11.4 vs. 11.7; NS) between the two periods. We described a decrease of sedation cost of 11 412 euros and a decrease of mechanical ventilation cost of 27 360 Euros between the two years. CONCLUSION: We confirm in this study that use of sedation protocol in ICU is associated with a clinical impact but also with an economic effect.

Randomized controlled trial of interrupted versus continuous sedative infusions in ventilated children.

OBJECTIVE: To compare daily interruption vs. continuous sedative infusions in mechanically ventilated children with respect to lengths of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit stay. DESIGN: Prospective randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Pediatric intensive care unit of a tertiary care teaching and referral hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred two patients mechanically ventilated for >48 hrs. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either continuous (group 1) or interrupted (group 2) sedative infusion (midazolam bolus of 0.1 mg/kg, followed by infusion, to achieve a Ramsay score of 3-4). Each patient in group 2 had daily interruption of infusion at 8:00 AM till he/she became fully awake (response to verbal commands) or so agitated/uncomfortable that he/she needed restarting of infusion (whichever was earlier) at a dose 50% less than the previous dose. Primary outcome variables were the lengths of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit stay, while the number and percentage of days awake on sedative infusions, frequency of adverse events, and total dose of sedatives required were the secondary outcome variables. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 102 patients included in the study, 56 were randomized into the continuous sedation protocol and 46 into the interrupted sedation protocol. Both were statistically similar with respect to demography, primary diagnosis, severity of illness score (Pediatric Risk of Mortality I and III), indication for mechanical ventilation, and initial ventilatory variables except that the patients under the interrupted arm had lower peak inspiratory pressure and positive end-expiratory pressure requirements at the start of ventilation (p = .002 and p = .028, respectively). The mean (SD) length of mechanical ventilation in the interrupted sedation protocol was significantly less than that in the continuous sedation protocol (7.0 ± 4.8 days vs. 10.3 ± 8.4 days; p = .021). Similarly, the difference in the median duration of pediatric intensive care unit stay was significantly less in the interrupted sedation as compared to the continuous sedation protocol (10.7 days vs. 14.0 days; p = .048). The mean total dose of midazolam and the total calculated cost of midazolam in the former were significantly less compared to those of the latter (7.1 ± 4.7 mL vs. 10.9 ± 6.9 mL, p = .002; 4827 ± 5445 rupees vs. 13,865 ± 25,338 rupees, p = .020). The frequencies of adverse events in both the groups were however similar. CONCLUSION: The length of mechanical ventilation, duration of intensive care unit stay, total dose of midazolam, and average calculated cost of the therapy were significantly reduced in the interrupted as compared to the continuous group of sedation.

[Comparison of the activity and reliability of intravenous administration of midazolam and dexmedetomidine on sedation levels under epidural anesthesia]. / Epidural anestezi altinda intravenöz midazolam ve deksmedetomidin kullaniminin sedasyon düzeyleri üzerine etkinlik ve güvenirliginin karsilastirilmasi

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the sedative effects of midazolam and dexmedetomidine and their effects on hemodynamics and the cardiovascular system under epidural anesthesia. METHODS: This study included 50 patients. Approval of the ethics committee and written consent from patients were obtained. The patients were separated into two groups to receive dexmedetomidine (D group) or midazolam (M group). Perifix no. 18 was placed in the epidural space from the L(3-4) interspace. After lidocaine 60 mg/3 ml was applied, isobaric bupivacaine 0.5% was given as 1 ml per segment. After block reached the T10 level, midazolam was given to the M group as a bolus of 0.015 mg kg(-1) in 10 minutes until beginning the operation, followed by continuous infusion as 0.1-0.2 mg kg(-1)h(-1) dosage. Dexmedetomidine 1 mcq kg(-1) was given to the D group as a bolus dosage in 10 minutes until beginning the operation, followed by continuous infusion as 0.4-0.7 mcq kg(-1) h(-1) dosage. Systolic arterial pressure (SAP), diastolic arterial pressure (DAP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), SpO(2), Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS), bispectral index (BIS), and respiratory rate (RR) were recorded. Sedative infusion was stopped when skin suture was closed. Adverse effects were also recorded. RESULTS: In group D, MAP was significantly higher and HR was significantly lower than in group M (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: We concluded that both drugs provided good sedation with no respiratory depression, stable hemodynamics and alertness with good cooperation. However, we consider midazolam as the first option due to its cost benefit.

Moderate sedation for echocardiography of preschoolers.

Preschoolers frequently require sedation for echocardiograms. This study compared various sedation drugs at the authors' institution, as well as the charges for moderate versus deep sedation. From 2001 to 2007, sedation was administered to 703 patients ages 2 to 4 years. Four drug regimens were used: chloral hydrate (CH), chloral hydrate with diphenhydramine (CH + D), chloral hydrate with hydroxyzine hydrochloride (CH + H), and midazolam. The mean onset of sedation was 37 min, and the mean duration of sedation was 47 min. The CH group fell asleep the most quickly (30 min; p < 0.001), and the CH + D patients experienced the most prolonged sedations (13%; p < 0.001). Studies were completed by 97% of the chloral hydrate group, 98% of the CH + D group, and 94% of the CH + H group compared with 66% of the midazolam group (p < 0.001). Complications (7.4%) were minor and not significant for any particular medication. The charges for moderate sedation averaged $709 compared with $3,628 for deep sedation. The findings demonstrated that chloral hydrate was the fastest-acting agent and had a high success rate with minimally prolonged sedations. The low complication rate for chloral hydrate, and the much lower cost for its use to induce moderate sedation have made chloral hydrate our preference for the echocardiographic sedation of preschoolers.

A cost-minimization analysis of dexmedetomidine compared with midazolam for long-term sedation in the intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the intensive care unit costs and determine factors influencing these costs in mechanically ventilated patients randomized to dexmedetomidine or midazolam by continuous infusion. DESIGN: Cost minimization analysis of a double-blind, multicenter clinical trial randomizing patients 2:1 to receive dexmedetomidine or midazolam from the institutional perspective. SETTING: Sixty-eight intensive care units in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, and Argentina. PATIENTS: A total of 366 intubated intensive care unit patients anticipated to require sedation for >24 hrs. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Intensive care unit resource use was compared within the two treatment arms, using the U.S. representative costs for these resources. The analyses characterized patient costs from start of study drug until intensive care unit discharge including costs associated with the intensive care unit stay, costs during mechanical ventilation, study drug acquisition cost, and costs of treating adverse drug reactions probably or possibly related to study drugs. Blinded to treatment group, costs were calculated using Medicare reimbursement schedules, average IMS drug costs, expert opinion, and peer-reviewed literature. Censored lengths of intensive care unit stay and mechanical ventilation were imputed, using a nonparametric adjustment algorithm. Crude and multivariate median regressions were performed to relate intensive care unit cost and treatment. Including drug acquisition cost, sedation with dexmedetomidine was associated with a median total intensive care unit cost savings of $9679 (confidence interval, $2314-$17,045) compared with midazolam. The primary cost drivers were reduced costs of intensive care unit stay (median savings, $6584, 95% confidence interval, $727-$12,440) and reduced costs of mechanical ventilation (median savings, $2958, 95% confidence interval, $698-$5219). CONCLUSIONS: Continuous sedation with dexmedetomidine results in significantly lower total intensive care unit costs compared with midazolam infusion for intensive care unit sedation, primarily due to decreased intensive care unit stay costs and reduced mechanical ventilation costs.

Comparison of the effect of protocol-directed sedation with propofol vs. midazolam by nurses in intensive care: efficacy, haemodynamic stability and patient satisfaction.

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of protocol-directed sedation propofol vs. midazolam by nurses in intensive care on efficacy, haemodynamic stability and patient satisfaction. BACKGROUND: Protocols represent one method potentially to reduce treatment delays and ensure that medical care is administered in a standardised manner. Propofol and midazolam are often used for sedation in intensive care units. METHOD: A randomised, prospective cohort study and data were collected in 2003. The subjects were randomised either into propofol (n = 32) or into midazolam (n = 28) group. Efficacy of sedation, haemodynamic stability, pulse oximetry saturation, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II score), weaning time from mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay at intensive care unit, sedative drugs cost and patient satisfaction were measured. RESULTS: The nursing staff were able to maintain patients at Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) 3-4 during the sedative period. The efficacy of sedation was 74.2% and 66.9% of time in propofol and midazolam group respectively. Both sedatives reduced the arterial blood pressure and heart rate, but did not alter haemodynamic stability. The mean score of satisfactory sedation was not significantly different between the two groups (propofol: 11.4 SEM 0.2 vs. midazolam: 11.5 SEM 0.7). CONCLUSION: Protocol-directed sedation with propofol vs. midazolam by nurses were similar in quality during the sedative period. Relevance to clinical practice. This sedation practice for titration of propofol and midazolam by nurses was of similar quality and able to achieve an appropriate depth of sedation during the sedative period. Furthermore, they should provide care for patients' needs during the sedative period.