Total intravenous anaesthesia: is it worth the cost?

Total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) has many advocates and offers potential benefits, yet the direct costs of this technique are commonly greater than those of inhalation-based alternatives. Although many advantages are claimed for TIVA, in reality all modern anaesthetics are effective and have good safety and tolerability profiles, rendering these differences of less importance now than was perhaps once the case. The majority of direct comparisons between inhaled and intravenous anaesthetics have failed to demonstrate significant differences in recovery times, yet they have consistently shown greater direct costs associated with intravenous propofol anaesthesia. It is commonly believed that indirect costs may be offset by indirect savings achieved through more rapid recovery, reduction in adverse effects and decreased staff workloads. In some cases, these differences in outcome have not been observed, while in many where they have, indirect savings are only theoretical. Reductions in recovery time and nursing workload will only result in savings if fewer nurses are required or if the existing ones can be paid for fewer hours. Salary arrangements, peak demand for patient care, performance of multiple tasks in parallel and limitations in time accounting methodology all limit the ability to achieve such savings in reality. Drug wastage also contributes to the cost of anaesthesia and is common to both intravenous and inhaled techniques. With inhaled anaesthesia, wastage can be reduced by the use of lower fresh gas flows, which has no adverse consequences and may provide potential benefits. With intravenous anaesthesia, reducing drug wastage is difficult and potentially harmful through cross-contamination of drugs between patients. Recently, the cost of propofol has been reduced with the availability of generics, making TIVA a more attractive proposition. The costs of several inhaled anaesthetics have also decreased, however, reducing any relative benefit. Nevertheless, the net result of lowered costs is that all types of anaesthetic drugs, which typically comprise <5% of a hospital pharmacy budget, represent excellent value for money. With few new products in the immediate pipeline and most established drugs already generic or about to lose their patent protection, the expense of anaesthesia is likely to decline even further. Perhaps then we will be able to stop arguing over relatively small differences in cost and choose a technique that, in our own experienced hands, provides the best and safest patient outcomes.