Validation of the pictorial Baxter Retching Faces scale for the measurement of the severity of postoperative nausea in Spanish-speaking children.

BACKGROUND: As the intensity of nausea, a subjective symptom, is difficult to estimate in children, vomiting is used as the objective clinical endpoint in managing paediatric postoperative nausea and vomiting. The pictorial Baxter Retching Faces (BARF) scale is a validated quantitative measure of paediatric nausea, but versions in languages other than English have not been validated. METHODS: Healthy Spanish-speaking children aged 7-18 yr (n=184) undergoing elective ambulatory surgery rated perioperative pain and nausea using visual analogue (VAS) and pictorial Faces Pain Scale - Revised and BARF scales, along with a Likert scale measurement of symptom changes. Parents kept a post-discharge diary. RESULTS: Postoperative BARF scores were significantly higher in patients receiving anti-emetics {mean [standard deviation (sd)]: 4.6 (3.4) vs 0.9 (1.6); P<0.001}. Nausea scores obtained prior to rescue anti-emetics were higher than preoperative values [mean (sd) increase: 4.0 (3.6); P<0.001], and decreased after therapy [decrease: 2 (2.4); P=0.03]. The Spearman correlation [95% confidence interval (CI)] between the BARF and VAS nausea scores was 0.72 (0.64-0.78), and significantly stronger than BARF and pain score correlation [0.3 (0.1-0.4)]. The minimum (sd) clinically relevant difference was 1.2 (1.7) for both BARF and VAS nausea scales. The intra-class coefficient (95% CI) of BARF scores was 0.88 (0.76-0.94). The BARF scale had excellent performance in predicting patient-perceived need for anti-emetics (area under the curve-receiver operating characteristic: 0.899; 95% CI: 0.82-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: The BARF scale has construct, convergent, discriminant, and test-retest validity in measuring nausea severity in Spanish-speaking children, and may be a useful instrument in the management of paediatric postoperative nausea and vomiting. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02007109.

A comparison of oral clonidine and oral midazolam as preanesthetic medications in the pediatric tonsillectomy patient.

UNLABELLED: We compared the effects of oral clonidine (4 microg/kg) and midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) on the preanesthetic sedation and postoperative recovery profile in children during tonsillectomy with or without adenoidectomy. In a double-blinded, double-dummy study design, 134 ASA physical status I-II children aged 4-12 yr were randomized to receive a combination of either clonidine and placebo (Group A), or placebo and midazolam (Group B) at 60-90 min and 30 min, respectively, before the induction of anesthesia. Children in the clonidine group exhibited more intense anxiety on separation and during induction of anesthesia via a mask as measured by the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scores. They also had significantly lower mean intraoperative arterial blood pressures, shorter surgery, anesthesia, and emergence times, and a decreased need for supplemental oxygen during recovery compared with the midazolam group. However, the clonidine group had larger postoperative opioid requirements, maximum excitement and pain scores based on the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario scale in the Phase 1 postanesthetic care unit. There were no differences between the two groups in the times to discharge readiness, postoperative emesis, unanticipated hospital admission rates, postdischarge maximum pain scores, and 24 h analgesic requirements. The percentage of parents who were completely satisfied with the child's preoperative experience was significantly higher in the midazolam group. There were no differences in parental satisfaction with the recovery period. We conclude that under the conditions of this study, oral midazolam is superior to oral clonidine as a preanesthetic medication in this patient population. IMPLICATIONS: We compared preanesthetic sedation and postoperative recovery after oral clonidine (4 microg/kg) and midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) in children during tonsillectomy. The clonidine group had greater preoperative anxiety and shorter surgery and anesthesia times, but required more postoperative analgesia. Delayed recovery and discharge times did not differ. Midazolam was superior to clonidine as oral preanesthetic medication for these patients.

Economics of antiemetics in anesthesia.

The optimal strategy for prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting remains uncertain. In the present review we examine the evidence that prophylactic antiemetics increase patient satisfaction and reduce costs in selected cases, as compared with a strategy of waiting for symptoms to develop and then administering treatment. Finally, evidence in favor of a specific antiemetic drug and dose are scrutinized, and an overall guideline for treatment is developed.

Pharmacoeconomics in anaesthesia: what are the issues?

Newer anaesthetic agents provide a faster onset, easier titration and a more rapid recovery than the older agents, but are more expensive. In assessing the financial consequences associated with their use, it is important to examine the total costs (including personnel costs) and not just the acquisition costs of new drugs. Claims of cost savings from new drugs should be subjected to close scrutiny, with studies designed to demonstrate that the preferential use of the newer drug is associated with actual decreased payments for personnel, an earlier return to normal activities by the patient and/or their caretakers, or the completion of an additional case in the same operating session. It may be necessary to alter work patterns to obtain the full benefits of the new drugs (e.g. bypass of the labour-intensive [phase I] postanaesthetic care unit). Finally, greater cost savings in the operating room can be achieved by increasing efficiency in resource utilization. A delay in starting a case, or a prolonged turnover time between cases, can negate any cost savings related to the anaesthetist's choice of drugs.

Comparison of the costs and recovery profiles of three anesthetic techniques for ambulatory anorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Given the current practice environment, it is important to determine the anesthetic technique with the highest patient acceptance and lowest associated costs. The authors compared three commonly used anesthetic techniques for anorectal procedures in the ambulatory setting. METHODS: Ninety-three consenting adult outpatients undergoing anorectal surgery were randomly assigned to one of three anesthetic treatment groups: group 1 received local infiltration with a 30-ml mixture containing 15 ml lidocaine, 2%, and 15 ml bupivacaine, 0.5%, with epinephrine (1:200,000) in combination with intravenous sedation using a propofol infusion, 25-100 microg. kg-1. min-1; group 2 received a spinal subarachnoid block with a combination of 30 mg lidocaine and 20 microg fentanyl with midazolam, 1-2-mg intravenous bolus doses; and group 3 received general anesthesia with 2.5 mg/kg propofol administered intravenously and 0.5-2% sevoflurane in combination with 65% nitrous oxide. In groups 2 and 3, the surgeon also administered 10 ml of the previously described local anesthetic mixture at the surgical site before the skin incision. RESULTS: The mean costs were significantly decreased in group 1 ($69 +/- 20 compared with $104 +/- 18 and $145 +/- 25 in groups 2 and 3, respectively) because both intraoperative and recovery costs were lowest (P < 0.05). Although the surgical time did not differ among the three groups, the anesthesia time and times to oral intake and home-readiness were significantly shorter in group 1 (vs. groups 2 and 3). There was no significant difference among the three groups with respect to the postoperative side effects or unanticipated hospitalizations. However, the need for pain medication was less in groups 1 and 2 (19% and 19% vs. 45% for group 3; P < 0.05). Patients in group 1 had no complaints of nausea (vs. 3% and 26% in groups 2 and 3, respectively). More patients in group 1 (68%) were highly satisfied with the care they received than in groups 2 (58%) and 3 (39%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of local anesthesia with sedation is the most cost-effective technique for anorectal surgery in the ambulatory setting.

Recovery profiles and costs of anesthesia for outpatient unilateral inguinal herniorrhaphy.

The use of an ilioinguinal-hypogastric nerve block (IHNB) as part of a monitored anesthesia care (MAC) technique has been associated with a rapid recovery profile for outpatients undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy procedures. This study was designed to compare the cost-effectiveness of an IHNB-MAC technique with standardized general and spinal anesthetics techniques for inguinal herniorrhaphy in the ambulatory setting. We randomly assigned 81 consenting outpatients to receive IHNB-MAC, general anesthesia, or spinal anesthesia. We evaluated recovery times, 24-h postoperative side effects and associated incremental costs. Compared with general and spinal anesthesia, patients receiving IHNB-MAC had the shortest time-to-home readiness (133+/-68 min vs. 171+/-40 and 280+/-83 min), lowest pain score at discharge (15+/-14 mm vs. 39+/-28 and 34+/-32 mm), and highest satisfaction at 24-h follow-up (75% vs. 36% and 64%). The total anesthetic costs were also the least in the IHNB-MAC group ($132.73+/-33.80 vs. $172.67+/-29.82 and $164.97+/-31.03). We concluded that IHNB-MAC is the most cost-effective anesthetic technique for outpatients undergoing unilateral inguinal herniorrhaphy with respect to speed of recovery, patient comfort, and associated incremental costs.

A comparison of the costs and efficacy of ondansetron versus dolasetron for antiemetic prophylaxis.

UNLABELLED: The optimal dose and timing of 5-HT(3) antagonist administration for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains controversial. Although 5-HT(3) antagonists seem to be most effective when administered near the end of surgery, there are no data on the comparative efficacy or costs associated with the 5-HT(3) antagonists dolasetron and ondansetron when administered at the end of the operation. In this double-blinded study, 200 outpatients undergoing otolaryngologic procedures with a standardized general anesthetic received 4 (O4) or 8 mg (O8) of ondansetron or 12.5 (D12.5) or 25 mg (D25) of dolasetron IV within 30 min before the end of surgery. A blinded observer recorded the emetic episodes, maximum nausea score, recovery room resource and drug use, nursing time spent managing PONV, times to achieve discharge criteria from the Phase 1 and 2 recovery units, postdischarge emesis, and patient satisfaction. Total costs were calculated by using the perspective of a free-standing surgicenter. There were no differences in patient demographics, incidence of PONV, need for rescue medications, time spent in the recovery areas, unanticipated hospital admissions, or patient satisfaction among the four treatment groups. The mean total costs (95% confidence intervals) to prevent PONV in one patient were lowest in the D12.5 group: $23.89 (17.18-28.79) vs $37.81 (30.29-45.32), $33.91 (28.92-39.35), and $75.18 (61.13-89.24) for D25, O4, and O8, respectively. Excluding nursing labor costs did not alter this finding: $18.51 (14.18-22.85), $34.77 (28.03-41.49), $31.77 (28. 92-39.35), and $71.76 (58.17-85.35) for D12.5, D25, O4, and O8, respectively. We conclude that 12.5 mg of dolasetron IV is more cost effective than 4 mg of ondansetron IV for preventing PONV after otolaryngologic surgery and is associated with similar patient satisfaction. IMPLICATIONS: When administered at the end of surgery, 12.5 mg of dolasetron IV is as effective as 25 mg of dolasetron IV, 4 mg of ondansetron IV, and 8 mg of ondansetron IV in preventing emetic symptoms after otolaryngologic surgery and was associated with similar patient satisfaction at a reduced cost. There were no differences in the antiemetic efficacy of the 4 and 8 mg doses of ondansetron.

Use of intranasal fentanyl in children undergoing myringotomy and tube placement during halothane and sevoflurane anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Many children are restless, disoriented, and inconsolable immediately after bilateral myringotomy and tympanosotomy tube placement (BMT). Rapid emergence from sevoflurane anesthesia and postoperative pain may increase emergence agitation. The authors first determined serum fentanyl concentrations in a two-phase study of intranasal fentanyl. The second phase was a prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind study to determine the efficacy of intranasal fentanyl in reducing emergence agitation after sevoflurane or halothane anesthesia. METHODS: In phase 1, 26 children with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II who were scheduled for BMT received intranasal fentanyl, 2 microg/kg, during a standardized anesthetic. Serum fentanyl concentrations in blood samples drawn at emergence and at postanesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge were determined by radioimmunoassay. In phase 2, 265 children with ASA physical status I or II were randomized to receive sevoflurane or halothane anesthesia along with either intranasal fentanyl (2 microg/kg) or saline. Postoperative agitation, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS) scores, and satisfaction of PACU nurses and parents with the anesthetic technique were evaluated. RESULTS: In phase 1, the mean fentanyl concentrations at 10 +/- 4 min (mean +/- SD) and 34 +/- 9 min after administering intranasal fentanyl were 0.80 +/- 0.28 and 0.64 +/- 0.25 ng/ml, respectively. In phase 2, the incidence of severe agitation, highest CHEOPS scores, and heart rate in the PACU were decreased with intranasal fentanyl. There were no differences between sevoflurane and halothane in these measures and in times to hospital discharge. The incidence of postoperative vomiting, hypoxemia, and slow respiratory rates were not increased with fentanyl. CONCLUSIONS: Serum fentanyl concentrations after intranasal administration exceed the minimum effective steady state concentration for analgesia in adults. The use of intranasal fentanyl during halothane or sevoflurane anesthesia for BMT is associated with diminished postoperative agitation without an increase in vomiting, hypoxemia, or discharge times.

A cost comparison of methohexital and propofol for ambulatory anesthesia.

UNLABELLED: Methohexital is eliminated more rapidly than thiopental, and early recovery compares favorably with propofol. We designed this study to evaluate the recovery profile when methohexital was used as an alternative to propofol for the induction of anesthesia before either sevoflurane or desflurane in combination with nitrous oxide. One hundred twenty patients were assigned randomly to one of four anesthetic groups: (I) methohexital-desflurane, (II) methohexital-sevoflurane, (III) propofol-desflurane, or (IV) propofol-sevoflurane. Recovery times after the anesthetic drugs, as well as the perioperative side effect profiles, were similar in all four groups. A cost-minimization analysis revealed that methohexital was less costly for the induction of anesthesia. At the fresh gas flow rates used during this study, the costs of the volatile anesthetics for maintenance of anesthesia did not differ among the four groups. However, at low flow rates (< or = 1 L/min), the methohexital-desflurane group would have been the least expensive anesthetic technique. In conclusion, methohexital is a cost-effective alternative to propofol for the induction of anesthesia in the ambulatory setting. At low fresh gas flow rates, the methohexital-desflurane combination was the most cost-effective for the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia. IMPLICATIONS: Using methohexital as an alternative to propofol for the induction of anesthesia for ambulatory surgery seems to reduce drug costs. When fresh gas flow rates < or = 1 L/min are used, the combination of methohexital for the induction and desflurane for maintenance may be the most cost-effective general anesthetic technique for ambulatory surgery.

Recovery profile, costs, and patient satisfaction with propofol and sevoflurane for fast-track office-based anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Office-based surgery is becoming increasingly popular because of its cost-saving potential Both propofol and sevoflurane are commonly used in the ambulatory setting because of their favorable recovery profiles. This clinical investigation was designed to compare the clinical effects, recovery characteristics, and cost-effectiveness of propofol and sevoflurane when used alone or in combination for office-based anesthesia. METHODS: One hundred four outpatients undergoing superficial surgical procedures at an office-based surgical center were randomly assigned to one of three general anesthetic groups. In groups I and II, propofol 2 mg/kg was administered for induction followed by propofol 75-150 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) (group I) or sevoflurane 1-2% (group II) with N2O 67% in oxygen for maintenance of anesthesia In group m, anesthesia was induced and maintained with sevoflurane in combination with N2O 67% in oxygen. Local anesthetics were injected at the incision site before skin incision and during the surgical procedure. The recovery profiles, costs of drugs, and resources used, as well as patient satisfaction, were compared among the three treatment groups. RESULTS: Although early recovery variables (e.g., eye opening, response to commands, and sitting up) were similar in all three groups, the times to standing up and to be "home ready" were significantly prolonged when sevoflurane-N2O was used for both induction and maintenance of anesthesia. The time to tolerating fluids, recovery room stay, and discharge times were significantly decreased when propofol was used for both induction and maintenance of anesthesia. Similarly, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and the need for rescue antiemetics were also significantly reduced after propofol anesthesia. Finally, the total costs and patient satisfaction were more favorable when propofol was used for induction and maintenance of office-based anesthesia CONCLUSION: Compared with sevoflurane-N2O, use of propofol-N2O for office-based anesthesia was associated with an improved recovery profile, greater patient satisfaction, and lower costs. There were significantly more patients who were dissatisfied with the sevoflurane anesthetic technique.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting in paediatric patients.

The past decade has witnessed the introduction of several significant innovations to combat POV, particularly the introduction of serotonin antagonists and the use of combinations of drugs for analgesia and control of POV. Based on current knowledge, the anaesthetic plan for a patient with a previous history of severe PONV and undergoing a procedure known to be associated with a high incidence of this problem should include premedication with a benzodiazepine and/or clonidine and the preferential use of regional anaesthetic techniques. If general anaesthesia is essential, anaesthetists should consider the use of propofol for both induction and maintenance of anaesthesia, together with avoidance of nitrous oxide, opioids and neuromuscular antagonists. Pain control is extremely important, and a peripheral regional block should be used if possible. A combination of prophylactic antiemetics such as dexamethasone, a 5-HT3 antagonist and an antiemetic of a different class (e.g. perphenazine or dimenhydrinate) should be administered. Non-pharmacological measures such as acupressure and suggestion should also be considered, together with nursing measures to avoid sudden movement from one position to another during the postoperative period. A quiet environment, adequate i.v. fluids and not forcing the patient to drink before discharge all contribute to decreased emesis. It is possible that the advent of a new class of antiemetic agents, the NKI antagonists, may have major effects on the incidence of this complication. Drugs in this group differ from other currently available drugs in having the ability to effectively block the emetic response to many stimuli in experimental animals. Postoperative vomiting remains a significant problem, resulting in patient suffering and prolonged recovery from anaesthesia. Our aim should be to eliminate this complication in all children who require surgery. It should not be considered merely as the 'big, little problem'.

The effect of timing of ondansetron administration on its efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit as a prophylactic antiemetic in the ambulatory setting.

UNLABELLED: Although ondansetron (4 mg I.V.) is effective in the prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after ambulatory surgery, the optimal timing of its administration, the cost-effectiveness, the cost-benefits, and the effect on the patient's quality of life after discharge have not been established. In this placebo-controlled, double-blind study, 164 healthy women undergoing outpatient gynecological laparoscopic procedures with a standardized anesthetic were randomized to receive placebo (Group A), ondansetron 2 mg at the start of and 2 mg after surgery (Group B), ondansetron 4 mg before induction (Group C), or ondansetron 4 mg after surgery (Group D). The effects of these regimens on the incidence, severity, and costs associated with PONV and discharge characteristics were determined, along with the patient's willingness to pay for antiemetics. Compared with ondansetron given before induction of anesthesia, the administration of ondansetron after surgery was associated with lower nausea scores, earlier intake of normal food, decreased incidence of frequent emesis (more than two episodes), and increased times until 25% of patients failed prophylactic antiemetic therapy (i.e., had an emetic episode or received rescue antiemetics for severe nausea) during the first 24 h postoperatively. This prophylactic regimen was also associated with the highest patient satisfaction and lowest cost-effectiveness ratios. Compared with the placebo group, ondansetron administered after surgery significantly reduced the incidence of PONV in the postanesthesia care unit and during the 24-h follow-up period and facilitated the recovery process by reducing the time to oral intake, ambulation, discharge readiness, resuming regular fluid intake and a normal diet. When ondansetron was given as a "split dose," its prophylactic antiemetic efficacy was not significantly different from that of the placebo group. In conclusion, the prophylactic administration of ondansetron after surgery, rather than before induction, may be associated with increased patient benefits. IMPLICATIONS: Ondansetron 4 mg I.V. administered immediately before the end of surgery was the most efficacious in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting, facilitating both early and late recovery, and improving patient satisfaction after outpatient laparoscopy.

Economics of anesthetic practice.

Anesthesiologists, like all other specialists, need to examine carefully their clinical practices so that excessive costs and waste can be reduced without compromising patient care or safety. While costs of drugs used for anesthesia constitute only a small fraction of total health care cost, they are highly visible costs which are easy for administrators to scrutinize. Although cost savings in an individual case may be small, the total savings may be impressive because of the large volume of cases performed. In a recent analysis of strategies to decrease PACU costs, Dexter and Tinker found that anesthesiologists have "little control over PACU economics via the choice of anesthetic drugs". Greater savings could be achieved by timing the arrival of patients into the PACU to reduce the peak requirement of nursing personnel. Hospital and operating room management would be better served by concentrating on these simple measures to improve efficiency rather than forcing anesthesiologists to base drug usage on acquisition costs. Even in countries that have nationalized health services, salaries make up the largest part of the costs, and the expenses in delaying an operation by 30 min exceeds the costs of a 2 h propofol infusion. It is becoming increasingly apparent that attempts at better scheduling of cases, more efficient processing of patients in the PACU to optimize admission rates, and reduced wastage of anesthetic and surgical supplies lead to greater savings than reducing anesthetic-related drug costs. Nevertheless, it is still important for anesthesiologists to participate in the ongoing effort to reduce medical costs without affecting the quality of patient care. Quality care and fiscally sound decision-making are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Simple, effective cost containment measures that all anesthesiologists can practice include using low fresh gas flow rates with inhalation agents and opening sterile packages and drug ampules only if the contents will be used. The choice of an anesthetic agent for routine use depends not only on its demonstrated efficacy and side effect profile, but also on economic factors. It is important to perform careful pharmacoeconomic evaluations of these newer drugs, including assessing all associated costs and benefits for subsets of patients undergoing different types of surgical procedures. These evaluations should also include input from patients regarding their personal preferences. Excessive emphasis on the acquisition costs of drugs may lead to blanket bans on the use of new drugs because of their higher costs rather than permitting physicians to individualize therapy according to their clinical experience and the perceived needs of a given patient. Institutional and individual variations in clinical practices, their associated costs and outcomes may alter conclusions about acceptability and economic evaluation of a particular drug or technique. The information in this review can be used to provide a rational basis for incorporating cost considerations into the decision-making process regarding the drugs, devices and techniques used in anesthesiology.