Literature DB >> 1931064

The differential cost of anesthesia and recovery with propofol-nitrous oxide anesthesia versus thiopental sodium-isoflurane-nitrous oxide anesthesia.

Y F Sung1, N Reiss, T Tillette.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To assess the recovery room profile of propofol in outpatient anesthesia and to compare it to the profile of a standard technique.
DESIGN: A comparative, randomized, double-blind, third-party open study.
SETTING: Ambulatory Surgery Center at The Emory Clinic. PATIENTS: Ninety-nine ASA physical status I, II, or III nonpregnant female patients who had been diagnosed as needing breast biopsies.
INTERVENTIONS: All patients were given 1 microgram/kg of fentanyl prior to induction. Those in the propofol group were induced with 2.0 to 2.5 mg/kg of propofol and maintained with a 100 to 200 microgram/kg/min infusion of propofol with nitrous oxide (N2O) in oxygen (O2). In the thiopental sodium-isoflurane group, patients were induced with 4.0 to 5.0 mg/kg of thiopental sodium and maintained with isoflurane and N2O in O2.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Recovery from anesthesia was assessed by an evaluator who was unaware of the anesthetic technique used for each patient. Immediate recovery time was measured in terms of awakening, response to verbal command, and orientation to time and place. A brief postoperative follow-up questionnaire was completed to assess the patients' subjective feelings regarding their ability to eat, concentrate, and resume normal activities. In the thiopental sodium-isoflurane group, 15 of 50 patients (30%) had nausea and vomiting, but in the propofol group, only 4 of 49 patients (8.1%) had nausea and vomiting (p less than 0.01). The latter group resumed normal activity (i.e., reading and watching television) 7.93 +/- 0.76 hours postanesthesia, whereas the thiopental sodium-isoflurane group resumed normal activity 17.02 +/- 1.21 hours postanesthesia (p less than 0.001). Patients in the propofol group returned to work in an average of 1.5 +/- 0.09 days, compared with 2.0 +/- 0.09 days for the thiopental sodium-isoflurane group (p less than 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The propofol group needed less nursing care and returned to more productive activity earlier than did the thiopental sodium-isoflurane group.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1931064     DOI: 10.1016/0952-8180(91)90182-m

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Anesth        ISSN: 0952-8180            Impact factor:   9.452


  9 in total

Review 1.  Cost considerations in the use of anaesthetic drugs.

Authors:  I Smith
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Anaesthesia drug cost, control and utilization in Canada.

Authors:  G S Kantor; F Chung
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 5.063

3.  Anaesthesia drug costs and utilization--time for a critical re-appraisal.

Authors:  D R Miller
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 5.063

Review 4.  Intravenous infusion anaesthesia and delivery devices.

Authors:  D R Miller
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 5.063

5.  Evaluation of cost minimization strategies of anaesthetic drugs in a tertiary care hospital.

Authors:  C Hawkes; D Miller; R Martineau; K Hull; H Hopkins; M Tierney
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 5.063

Review 6.  Propofol. A pharmacoeconomic appraisal of its use in day case surgery.

Authors:  B Fulton; K L Goa
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 7.  Propofol. An update of its use in anaesthesia and conscious sedation.

Authors:  H M Bryson; B R Fulton; D Faulds
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 9.546

8.  Thiopentone pretreatment for propofol injection pain in ambulatory patients.

Authors:  R D Haugen; H Vaghadia; T Waters; P M Merrick
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 5.063

9.  Total intravenous anaesthesia: is it worth the cost?

Authors:  Ian Smith
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 5.749

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.