T Loop1, H-J Priebe. 1. Department of Anesthesia, University Hospital, Freiburg, Germany. torsten@ana l.ukl.uni-freiburg.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the era of cost containment, cost analysis should demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of new anesthetic drugs. METHODS: This single-blind, prospective, randomized study compared the costs of three remifentanil (REM)-based anesthetic techniques with a conventional one in 120 patients undergoing otorhinolaryngeal surgery. The patients were randomized (n=30 each group) to either receive a combination of REM with propofol, desflurane or sevoflurane, or a conventional anesthetic with thiopentone, alfentanil, isoflurane and N2O. RESULTS: The costs for anesthetic and nonanesthetic drugs and for disposables were twice as high in the three REM-based groups as in the conventional group (REM/PRO 0.51 Euro;/min, REM/DES 0.42 Euro;/min, and REM/SEVO 0.41 Euro;/min vs. 0.18 Euro;/min in the ALF/ISO/N2O group; P<0.05). Wastage of intravenous drugs accounted for up to 40% of total costs. In all REM groups, early recovery was predictably faster and more complete (P<0.05). Patient satisfaction was equally high (90-97%) in all groups, with less nausea in the REM/PRO group. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that REM-based anesthetic techniques are more expensive than a conventional technique using alfentanil, isoflurane and N2O. This is the result of higher costs of anesthetic and nonanesthetic drugs and of disposables. The wastage of intravenous drugs contributes considerably to these costs.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In the era of cost containment, cost analysis should demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of new anesthetic drugs. METHODS: This single-blind, prospective, randomized study compared the costs of three remifentanil (REM)-based anesthetic techniques with a conventional one in 120 patients undergoing otorhinolaryngeal surgery. The patients were randomized (n=30 each group) to either receive a combination of REM with propofol, desflurane or sevoflurane, or a conventional anesthetic with thiopentone, alfentanil, isoflurane and N2O. RESULTS: The costs for anesthetic and nonanesthetic drugs and for disposables were twice as high in the three REM-based groups as in the conventional group (REM/PRO 0.51 Euro;/min, REM/DES 0.42 Euro;/min, and REM/SEVO 0.41 Euro;/min vs. 0.18 Euro;/min in the ALF/ISO/N2O group; P<0.05). Wastage of intravenous drugs accounted for up to 40% of total costs. In all REM groups, early recovery was predictably faster and more complete (P<0.05). Patient satisfaction was equally high (90-97%) in all groups, with less nausea in the REM/PRO group. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that REM-based anesthetic techniques are more expensive than a conventional technique using alfentanil, isoflurane and N2O. This is the result of higher costs of anesthetic and nonanesthetic drugs and of disposables. The wastage of intravenous drugs contributes considerably to these costs.