Literature DB >> 7978399

Cost comparison: a desflurane- versus a propofol-based general anesthetic technique.

M K Rosenberg1, P Bridge, M Brown.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the cost of a desflurane-based with a propofol-based general anesthetic technique. Fifty ambulatory orthopedic surgery patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Premedication and induction of anesthesia were standardized in both groups. In Group I patients, anesthesia was maintained with a propofol infusion and nitrous oxide-oxygen and in Group II patients, with desflurane-oxygen. The techniques used were identical to those routinely used with these drugs by our practitioners. The actual drug acquisition costs for the maintenance periods were calculated and compared, as was the duration of the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stay (Phase I + Phase II). The drug acquisition cost for the maintenance period of general anesthesia with our desflurane-based technique was $11.24/h and for our propofol-based technique, $44.08/h. The length of PACU stay was not significantly different in the two groups. In conclusion, maintenance general anesthesia with our desflurane technique was considerably less expensive than with our propofol technique. PACU stay was not increased using desflurane as opposed to propofol in our study. Desflurane offers a cost effective alternative to propofol for ambulatory general anesthesia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7978399     DOI: 10.1213/00000539-199411000-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesth Analg        ISSN: 0003-2999            Impact factor:   5.108


  13 in total

1.  [Clinical pathway "laparoscopic prostatectomy". Analysis of anesthesiological procedures in a randomized study].

Authors:  J-P Braun; M Walter; M Lein; J Roigas; B Schwilk; M Moshirzadeh; K Eveslage; B Rehberg-Klug; D Hansen; C Spies
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 1.041

2.  [Desflurane and isoflurane in minimal-flow anesthesia. Consumption and costs with forced fresh gas reduction].

Authors:  H Buchinger; S Kreuer; M Paxian; R Larsen; W Wilhelm
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 1.041

3.  Effects of reduction of carrier gas flow rate on sevoflurane and isoflurane consumption and costs.

Authors:  Satoru Tanaka; Hideaki Tsuchida; Hajime Sonoda; Akiyoshi Namiki
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 2.078

Review 4.  Low-flow anaesthesia. Does it have potential pharmacoeconomic consequences?

Authors:  S Suttner; J Boldt
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  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 6.  Clinical and economic factors important to anaesthetic choice for day-case surgery.

Authors:  E I Eger; P F White; M S Bogetz
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-03       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.  Total intravenous anaesthesia: is it worth the cost?

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

9.  Propofol decreases early postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing thyroid and parathyroid operations.

Authors:  Paul G Gauger; Amy Shanks; Michelle Morris; Mary Lou V H Greenfield; Richard E Burney; Michael O'Reilly
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 3.352

10.  Perspectives on the role of fospropofol in the monitored anesthesia care setting.

Authors:  Joseph V Pergolizzi; Tong J Gan; Stanford Plavin; Sumedha Labhsetwar; Robert Taylor
Journal:  Anesthesiol Res Pract       Date:  2011-04-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.