OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost and cost-effectiveness of a policy of pre-operative optimisation of oxygen delivery (using either adrenaline or dopexamine) to reduce the risk associated with major elective surgery, in high-risk patients. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a randomised controlled trial (RCT). In the RCT 138 patients undergoing major elective surgery were allocated to receive pre-operative optimisation employing either adrenaline or dopexamine (assigned randomly), or to receive routine peri-operative care. Differential health service costs were based on trial data on the number and cause of hospital in-patient days and the utilisation of health care resources. These were costed using unit costs from a UK hospital. The cost-effectiveness analysis related differential costs to differential life-years during a 2 year trial follow-up. RESULTS: The mean number of in-patient days was 16 in the pre-optimised groups (19 adrenaline; 13 dopexamine) and 22 in the standard care group. The number (%) of deaths, over a 2 year follow-up, was 24 (26%) in the pre-optimised groups and 15 (33%) in the standard care group. The mean total costs were EUR 11,310 in the pre-optimised groups and EUR 16,965 in the standard care group. Life-years were 1.68 in the pre-optimised groups and 1.46 in the standard care group. The probability that pre-operative optimisation is less costly than standard care is 98%. The probability that it dominates standard care is 93%. CONCLUSIONS: Based on resource use and effectiveness data collected in the trial, pre-operative optimisation of high-risk surgical patients undergoing major elective surgery is cost-effective compared with standard treatment.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost and cost-effectiveness of a policy of pre-operative optimisation of oxygen delivery (using either adrenaline or dopexamine) to reduce the risk associated with major elective surgery, in high-risk patients. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a randomised controlled trial (RCT). In the RCT 138 patients undergoing major elective surgery were allocated to receive pre-operative optimisation employing either adrenaline or dopexamine (assigned randomly), or to receive routine peri-operative care. Differential health service costs were based on trial data on the number and cause of hospital in-patient days and the utilisation of health care resources. These were costed using unit costs from a UK hospital. The cost-effectiveness analysis related differential costs to differential life-years during a 2 year trial follow-up. RESULTS: The mean number of in-patient days was 16 in the pre-optimised groups (19 adrenaline; 13 dopexamine) and 22 in the standard care group. The number (%) of deaths, over a 2 year follow-up, was 24 (26%) in the pre-optimised groups and 15 (33%) in the standard care group. The mean total costs were EUR 11,310 in the pre-optimised groups and EUR 16,965 in the standard care group. Life-years were 1.68 in the pre-optimised groups and 1.46 in the standard care group. The probability that pre-operative optimisation is less costly than standard care is 98%. The probability that it dominates standard care is 93%. CONCLUSIONS: Based on resource use and effectiveness data collected in the trial, pre-operative optimisation of high-risk surgical patients undergoing major elective surgery is cost-effective compared with standard treatment.
Authors: J Geoffrey Chase; Christina Starfinger; Christopher E Hann; James A Revie; Dave Stevenson; Geoffrey M Shaw; Thomas Desaive Journal: Open Med Inform J Date: 2010-07-29
Authors: João M Silva; Amanda M Ribas R Oliveira; Juliano Lopes Segura; Marcel Henrique Ribeiro; Carolina Nacevicius Sposito; Diogo O Toledo; Ederlon Rezende; Luiz M Sá Malbouisson Journal: Anesthesiol Res Pract Date: 2011-10-05
Authors: Brian H Cuthbertson; Marion K Campbell; Stephen A Stott; Andrew Elders; Rodolfo Hernández; Dwayne Boyers; John Norrie; John Kinsella; Julie Brittenden; Jonathan Cook; Daniela Rae; Seonaidh C Cotton; David Alcorn; Jennifer Addison; Adrian Grant Journal: Crit Care Date: 2011-12-16 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Rupert Pearse; Deborah Dawson; Jayne Fawcett; Andrew Rhodes; R Michael Grounds; E David Bennett Journal: Crit Care Date: 2005-11-08 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Maurizio Cecconi; Carlos Corredor; Nishkantha Arulkumaran; Gihan Abuella; Jonathan Ball; R Michael Grounds; Mark Hamilton; Andrew Rhodes Journal: Crit Care Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 9.097