ABSTRACT
The clinical effects and financial impact of a change in prescribing habits from routine to occasional use of perioperative bronchodilators, following the presentation of drug information, were assessed retrospectively by comparing the outcomes of patients admitted for major thoracic surgery. Eighteen of 24 (75%) patients in Period A (prior to change) received salbutamol bronchodilator therapy versus 10 of 17 (59%) in Period B (following the change) (p = .448). Of the patients who did receive salbutamol aerosols, the mean dose in grams per patient was greater in Period A than in Period B (6.85 +/- 5.96 vs. 2.64 +/- 4.44 respectively p < 0.05). Two patients from Period A and one from Period B were receiving digoxin prior to admission. In the remaining patients, 5 of 22 (23%) in Period A and 1 of 16 (6%) in Period B developed atrial fibrillation requiring digoxin (p = .36). The proportion of patients with obstructive airways disease (OAD) who developed an arrhythmia was not different between the two groups. However, in those patients without OAD an arrhythmia was reported in 9 of 16 patients (56%) receiving salbutamol, versus only 1 of 11 (9%) of those not receiving it (p = 0.032). The number of days patients were hospitalized during Period A and Period B were 10.2 +/- 4.97 and 9.4 +/- 3.68 respectively (p = 0.85). A potential average cost-avoidance of $68.46 per patient could be realized with this new practice. We conclude that a change in prescribing habits had no adverse clinical outcome and resulted in a considerable cost-avoidance.
