Jean Lachaine1, Catherine Beauchemin. 1. , PhD, is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Pharmacy, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Dexmedetomidine is an α(2)-receptor agonist administered by continuous infusion in the intensive care unit (ICU) for sedation of critically ill patients who are undergoing mechanical ventilation following intubation. Relative to ICU patients receiving midazolam (a γ-aminobutyric acid agonist) for sedation, those receiving dexmedetomidine spent less time on ventilation, had fewer episodes of delirium, and had a lower incidence of tachycardia and hypertension. OBJECTIVE: To assess the economic impact, in a Canadian context, of dexmedetomidine, relative to midazolam, for sedation in the ICU. METHODS: This economic evaluation was based on a cost-consequences analysis, from the perspective of the Canadian health care system. The selected time horizon was an ICU stay (maximum 30 days). Clinical data were obtained from a previously published prospective, randomized, double-blind trial comparing dexmedetomidine and midazolam. This evaluation considered the costs of the medications, mechanical ventilation, and delirium episodes, as well as costs associated with adverse events requiring an intervention. All costs were adjusted to 2010 and are reported in Canadian dollars. RESULTS: The average cost of the medication was higher for dexmedetomidine than midazolam ($1929.57 versus $180.10 per patient), but the average costs associated with mechanical ventilation and management of delirium were lower with dexmedetomidine than with midazolam ($2939 versus $4448 for ventilation; $2127 versus $3012 for delirium). The overall cost per patient was lower with dexmedetomidine than with midazolam ($7022 versus $7680). Deterministic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the difference. CONCLUSIONS: The use of dexmedetomidine was, in most contexts, a more favourable strategy than the use of midazolam, in terms of clinical consequences and economic impact. Dexmedetomidine was less expensive than midazolam and was associated with lower occurrence of delirium and shorter duration of mechanical ventilation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Dexmedetomidine is an α(2)-receptor agonist administered by continuous infusion in the intensive care unit (ICU) for sedation of critically illpatients who are undergoing mechanical ventilation following intubation. Relative to ICU patients receiving midazolam (a γ-aminobutyric acid agonist) for sedation, those receiving dexmedetomidine spent less time on ventilation, had fewer episodes of delirium, and had a lower incidence of tachycardia and hypertension. OBJECTIVE: To assess the economic impact, in a Canadian context, of dexmedetomidine, relative to midazolam, for sedation in the ICU. METHODS: This economic evaluation was based on a cost-consequences analysis, from the perspective of the Canadian health care system. The selected time horizon was an ICU stay (maximum 30 days). Clinical data were obtained from a previously published prospective, randomized, double-blind trial comparing dexmedetomidine and midazolam. This evaluation considered the costs of the medications, mechanical ventilation, and delirium episodes, as well as costs associated with adverse events requiring an intervention. All costs were adjusted to 2010 and are reported in Canadian dollars. RESULTS: The average cost of the medication was higher for dexmedetomidine than midazolam ($1929.57 versus $180.10 per patient), but the average costs associated with mechanical ventilation and management of delirium were lower with dexmedetomidine than with midazolam ($2939 versus $4448 for ventilation; $2127 versus $3012 for delirium). The overall cost per patient was lower with dexmedetomidine than with midazolam ($7022 versus $7680). Deterministic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the difference. CONCLUSIONS: The use of dexmedetomidine was, in most contexts, a more favourable strategy than the use of midazolam, in terms of clinical consequences and economic impact. Dexmedetomidine was less expensive than midazolam and was associated with lower occurrence of delirium and shorter duration of mechanical ventilation.
Entities:
Keywords:
dexmedetomidine; economic evaluation; intensive care unit; sedation
Authors: D A Chernik; D Gillings; H Laine; J Hendler; J M Silver; A B Davidson; E M Schwam; J L Siegel Journal: J Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 1990-08 Impact factor: 3.153
Authors: E W Ely; S K Inouye; G R Bernard; S Gordon; J Francis; L May; B Truman; T Speroff; S Gautam; R Margolin; R P Hart; R Dittus Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-12-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Eric B Milbrandt; Stephen Deppen; Patricia L Harrison; Ayumi K Shintani; Theodore Speroff; Renée A Stiles; Brenda Truman; Gordon R Bernard; Robert S Dittus; E Wesley Ely Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Richard R Riker; Yahya Shehabi; Paula M Bokesch; Daniel Ceraso; Wayne Wisemandle; Firas Koura; Patrick Whitten; Benjamin D Margolis; Daniel W Byrne; E Wesley Ely; Marcelo G Rocha Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-02-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Joseph F Dasta; Sandra L Kane-Gill; Michael Pencina; Yahya Shehabi; Paula M Bokesch; Wayne Wisemandle; Richard R Riker Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jorge I Salluh; Márcio Soares; José M Teles; Daniel Ceraso; Nestor Raimondi; Victor S Nava; Patrícia Blasquez; Sebastian Ugarte; Carlos Ibanez-Guzman; José V Centeno; Manuel Laca; Gustavo Grecco; Edgar Jimenez; Susana Árias-Rivera; Carmelo Duenas; Marcelo G Rocha Journal: Crit Care Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Heidi Turunen; Stephan M Jakob; Esko Ruokonen; Kirsi-Maija Kaukonen; Toni Sarapohja; Marjo Apajasalo; Jukka Takala Journal: Crit Care Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Yang Gao; Kai Kang; Haitao Liu; Liu Jia; Rong Tang; Xing Zhang; Hongliang Wang; Kaijiang Yu Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 1.889