Efficacy and costs of 3 anesthetic regimens in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the antiemetic efficacy and costs associated with 3 different anesthesia regimens used in gynecologic laparoscopy. DESIGN: This was a randomized, controlled study. SETTING: The study was conducted at a university hospital. PATIENTS: We studied 150 ASA physical status I or II patients, undergoing elective gynecologic laparoscopy with general anesthesia. INTERVENTION: Patients were allocated into the following 3 groups: group P-preoperative placebo tablet, propofol induction, propofol-air/O2 maintenance; group I + O-preoperative 8-mg ondansetron tablet, thiopental induction, isoflurane-N2O maintenance; group I (control)-preoperative placebo tablet, thiopental induction, isoflurane-N2O maintenance. MEASUREMENTS: The frequency of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), number needed to treat to prevent PONV, and the costs of the anesthetic drugs to prevent PONV in one additional patient were evaluated. MAIN RESULTS: The frequency of PONV within the 24-hour study period was lowest in group I + O (P, 38%; I + O, 33%; and I, 59%; P < 0.05 I + O vs I). The number needed to treat was 5 in group P and 4 in group I + O, compared with group I. The median costs of anesthetic drugs to prevent PONV in one additional patient were $65 in group P and dollar 68 in group I + O, compared with group I. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that in gynecologic laparoscopy, propofol-air/O2 anesthesia alone, and isoflurane-N2O anesthesia combined with an oral 8-mg dose of ondansetron had similar efficacy and costs to prevent PONV. Isoflurane-N2O anesthesia without ondansetron was less expensive, but was also less efficacious.

The use of thiopentone/propofol admixture for laryngeal mask airway insertion.

An admixture of thiopentone and propofol was evaluated against propofol for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion. Eighty-one ASA 1 and 2 18- to 65-year-old patients, premedicated with 7.5 mg midazolam orally were assigned randomly to receive either propofol 1% or an admixture of thiopentone and propofol (1.25% and 0.5% respectively), both at a dose of 0.25 ml x kg(-1). Satisfactory conditions for insertion were achieved with the admixture, which was comparable to propofol (73% vs 85%, P>0.05). There was no statistical difference in the incidence or severity of gagging, coughing, inadequate jaw relaxation and laryngospasm. The incidence of hypotension was lower in the admixture group (51% vs 78%, P=0.02). The duration of apnoea was not different between the admixture and propofol group (mean 103s vs 109s respectively, P>0.05). We conclude that thiopentone/propofol admixture can be a suitable alternative to propofol for LMA insertion, producing less hypotension while allowing cost savings of up to 45%. An admixture of thiopentone and propofol (1.25% and 0.5% respectively) can produce suitable conditions compared to propofol 1%, for laryngeal mask insertion. In addition to cost containment, the admixture also produces less hypotension.

A study of co-induction of anaesthesia U.B.T.H. experience.

Co-induction is the concurrent administration of two or more drugs that facilitate induction of anaesthesia. Some combinations have been shown to have pharmacological advantages. In addition to the safety and comfort of the patient, it is also important to find a cost effective combination in view of the rather stringent economy of the times. This project was undertaken to study the response of Nigerian patients to co-induction (midazolam and propofol) by comparison with the traditional thiopentone or propofol alone, and to study the cost implications. 45 patients who came in for various surgical procedures were randomly assigned to three different groups. The first group was induced with thiopentone alone. The second group had a combination of midazolam and propofol and the third group had propofol alone. In all other respects except for the surgery the patients had the same treatment. The induction was satisfactory in all groups. The cardiovascular and respiratory changes were within clinically acceptable limits but the emergence was best with propofol, followed by midazolam/propofol and thiopentone in that order. Although thiopentone was the cheapest in terms of absolute cost, the combination of midazolam and propofol was most cost-effective.

Part II: total episode costs in a randomized, controlled trial of the effectiveness of four anesthetics.

UNLABELLED: Newer anesthetics promise improved clinical outcomes, but usually come at a higher price per dose. Previous studies have found few economic benefits in the immediate postoperative period, but have hypothesized that earlier recovery may lead to lower costs for the whole episode of hospitalization. This study uses cost data for patients enrolled in a randomized, controlled clinical trial comparing four anesthetics to test whether the higher costs of the newer anesthetics would be offset against decreased use of other hospital resources. Five hundred general surgery patients were randomly assigned to one of four anesthetic regimens. Estimates from the hospital's patient costing system were used, with validated cost records for a subset of 360 patients. Five patients admitted to the intensive care unit or requiring prolonged hospitalization skewed the distribution of costs, but none of these complications could be attributed to anesthesia. No significant differences were found on length of stay, mean episode cost, operating room costs, ward costs, or readmission rate within 3 mo. The study was not powered to sufficiently show differences in intensive care unit admission or other uncommon outcomes. Patient quality of recovery did not vary among groups, but neither patient willingness-to-pay nor satisfaction were directly measured. IMPLICATIONS: Propofol and sevoflurane do not offer any significant economic advantages over thiopental and isoflurane in adults undergoing elective inpatient surgery.

Drug use inefficiency: a hidden source of wasted health care dollars.

UNLABELLED: A potential area for departmental savings is to minimize inefficient use of pharmaceuticals. We recorded drug waste data for multiple drugs for a fiscal year and surveyed providers' knowledge of departmental drug waste. Six large-cost or large-volume use drugs were chosen for study: thiopental, succinylcholine, rocuronium, atracurium, midazolam, and propofol. Amounts administered to patients were collected for one year by using a computerized anesthesia record keeper. Total drug distributed was the number of vials restocked by pharmacy for the year. An efficiency index, the percent administered to patients, was calculated for each drug. Drug administration to 25,481 patients was analyzed. Drug use efficiency indices were: atracurium 29%; thiopental, 31%; succinylcholine, 33%; propofol, 49%; midazolam, 53%; rocuronium, 61%. The total cost of unadministered study drugs was $165,667, 26% of the expenditure for all drugs. Most dollars wasted were for propofol, $80,863, and thiopental, $32,839. The reason most cited for drug waste was the disposal of full, or partially full, syringes. Drug wastage represents a significant portion of the entire anesthesia drug budget. Waste reduction strategies should allow a portion of the "avoidable" waste to be reduced. IMPLICATIONS: Unadministered drug amounts were measured for six study drugs over one fiscal year and found to be significant; the cost of unadministered drugs totaled $165,667. The reason most cited for waste was disposal of full, or partially full, syringes.

Onset time, recovery duration, and drug cost with four different methods of inducing general anesthesia.

UNLABELLED: We compared two conventional induction techniques (thiopental and propofol), an inhaled induction with sevoflurane using a circle system, and a rebreathing method. Fentanyl 1 microg/kg was given to women undergoing 10- to 20-min procedures. Anesthesia was induced (n = 20 each) with one of the following: 1) sevoflurane and N2O from a rebreathing bag (Sevo/Bag). A 5-L bag was prefilled with a mixture of sevoflurane 7% and N2O 60% in oxygen. The bag was connected between the normal circle system, separated by a spring-loaded valve; 2) sevoflurane 8% and N2O 60% from a circle system on a conventional anesthesia machine with a total fresh gas flow of 6 L/min (Sevo/Circle); 3) propofol 3 mg/kg as an i.v. bolus; 4) thiopental sodium 5 mg/kg as an i.v. bolus. Postoperative nausea and vomiting was treated with ondansetron. Induction times were comparable with each method. Recovery duration was shortest with sevoflurane, intermediate with propofol, and longest with thiopental. Induction drug costs were lowest with Sevo/Bag and thiopental, intermediate with Sevo/Circle, and highest with propofol. However, sevoflurane (by either method) caused considerable nausea and vomiting that required treatment. Consequently, total drug cost was least with thiopental, intermediate with Sevo/Bag and propofol, and greatest with Sevo/Circle. Thus, no single technique was clearly superior. IMPLICATIONS: Anesthetic induction techniques influence awakening time, recovery duration, and drug costs. We tested two i.v. methods and two inhaled techniques. However, none of the four tested methods was clearly superior to the others.

Thiopentone and propofol: a compatible mixture?

The physical compatibility of thiopentone and propofol mixtures was investigated. The investigations used were macroscopic and microscopic observations, zeta potential and oil droplet size measurements. There was no evidence of instability in the mixtures. The thiopentone-propofol mixture has the potential advantage of reducing the pain on injection, provides synergistic interaction, does not prolong recovery when used for induction of anaesthesia, may reduce the incidence of convulsions and is cost-effective.

Propofol vs isoflurane for neurosurgical anesthesia in Thai patients.

Sixty Thai patients, ASA class I-II, Glasgow coma score of 15 undergoing elective intracranial surgery were randomly assigned to 2 groups. In group I, 30 patients were induced with thiopental 3-5 mg/kg, intubation with succinylcholine 1-2 mg/kg and then maintained with 60 per cent N2O in O2, isoflurane and vecuronium as a muscle relaxant. In group II, 30 patients received fentanyl 50 micrograms, propofol 1.0-2.5 mg/kg for induction and vecuronium 0.08 mg/kg for intubation then maintained with 60 per cent N2O in O2, continuous infusion of propofol 2-12 mg/kg/h and vecuronium as a muscle relaxant. Controlled ventilation in both groups was set to maintain PET CO2 in the range of 28-35 mmHg. 3 patients (1 in group I and 2 in group II) were excluded from the study due to surgical problems. There was no statistical difference in age, sex, ASA status, weight, duration of anesthesia. Group II had a more stable systolic BP, Diastolic BP and Pulse rate than Group I during induction and emergence from anesthesia. Glasgow coma scores in the recovery period, Group II had higher scores than Group I at 5 and 15 minutes but not at 30 minutes. Mean recovery times (eye opening) was 14.03 +/- 4.85 minutes in group I which is significantly different from 10 +/- 5.17 minutes in group II. The cost of anesthesia in group II was 1.3 times that of group I. In conclusion, although neurosurgical anesthesia for Thai patients with fentanyl-propofol technique produces more stable blood pressure during intubation and emergence, rapid recovery from anesthesia and a higher Glasgow coma score, the cost of anesthesia is more expensive. Furthermore, this technique is more difficult and needs more experience.

Comparison of propofol versus thiopentone with midazolam or lidocaine to facilitate laryngeal mask insertion.

PURPOSE: To assess the ease of insertion of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) comparing propofol with lidocaine or midazolam followed by thiopentone and compare the costs with each technique. METHODS: One hundred and fifty ASA 1 or 2 patients equally divided into three groups scheduled for elective surgery were recruited into this prospective, single blind, randomized, parallel groups study. Anaesthetic induction was achieved with 1 microgram.kg-1 fentanyl i.v. followed by either 2.5 mg.kg-1 propofol (group P), or a sequence of 1.5 mg.kg-1 lidocaine and 5 mg.kg-1 thiopentone (group LT), or midazolam 0.1 mg.kg-1 and, three minutes later, 5 mg.kg-1 thiopentone (group MT). The LMA was inserted by the blinded anaesthetist who assessed and graded the conditions for LMA insertion and noted any adverse responses (i.e., inadequate jaw relaxation, gagging, coughing, limb or head movement, hiccough and laryngospasm). Conditions were considered "excellent" if there were no adverse responses, and "satisfactory" if such a response was mild and transient. RESULTS: Excellent or satisfactory conditions were observed in 48 (96%) patients in the midazolam-thiopentone group, 46 (92%) in the propofol group, and 34 (68%) in the lidocaine-thiopentone group (P = 0.0001). The incidence of gagging (P = 0.042), limb movement (P = 0.031), and laryngospasm (P = 0.0001) was higher in the lidocaine-thiopentone group. CONCLUSIONS: With the above doses, a fentanyl-midazolam-thiopentone combination which is about 35% less expensive than fentanyl-propofol, provides equally good conditions for the insertion of LMA.

Pharmacoeconomics of propofol versus thiopental for induction of anaesthesia in short procedures.

This study compared the costs and benefits of using propofol/fentanyl versus thiopental/fentanyl for induction of anaesthesia in short procedures. A prospective, cohort trial was conducted in conjunction with a patient survey. The study population included a consecutive sample of American Society of Anaesthesiologists. Class I or II patients who underwent short operative procedures and who were given one of the studied anaesthetic regimens. Insoflurane/N2O was used for maintenance of anaesthesia in all cases. Propofol patients showed a significantly shorter time to eye opening (p = 0.0025); orientation to date of birth, place, and day of week (p = 0.0002); time to consciousness (p = 0.0019); and time in recovery room (p = 0.013); but not time to tolerating 50 mL of oral fluid (p = 0.06). Nausea and vomiting occurred in 41% of thiopental patients and 19% of propofol patients (difference 22%; 95% C.I., -1% to 44%). Based on survey results, propofol patients subjectively reported fewer side effects upon returning home and were able to resume daily activities earlier than thiopental patients. With the current staffing and patient load at our institution, an estimated 4.8 hours of nursing time per day would be made available if propofol were used in place of thiopental for induction of anaesthesia in these procedures. If propofol were used for all daycare surgery patients in our institution, the annual acquisition cost is projected to be $60,331.28 versus $8,079.68 for thiopental.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Cost analysis of propofol versus thiopental induction anesthesia in outpatient laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.

This study investigated the cost of propofol versus thiopental anesthesia in 243 patients who underwent outpatient laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. Patients records were analyzed for medication use, duration of surgery, anesthesia, recovery room stay, and associated costs. Despite the higher drug cost for propofol, the total mean cost was $273.00 less per patient for patients receiving propofol induction anesthesia. Extension of these data translates into cost savings of approximately $7900.00 if propofol had been used for all patients. Although the duration of surgery for the propofol group was shorter by nearly 12 minutes, the anesthesia duration and recovery room stay were both longer for the thiopental group, reflecting the longer duration of action of thiopental. Although the realized cost savings of drugs, surgery, anesthesia, and recovery time when propofol versus thiopental is used for outpatient laparoscopic gynecologic surgery are relatively small on an individual patient basis, cost savings may become more significant if larger patient populations are studied.

[Intravenous anesthesia with propofol versus thiopental-/enflurane anesthesia. A consumption and cost analysis]. / Intravenöse Anästhesie mit Propofol versus Thiopental-/Enflurananästhesie. Eine Verbrauchs- und Kostenanalyse.

It may be possible to reduce costs in anaesthesia when there is a choice of drugs and methods. Two of the most widespread techniques are inhalation anaesthesia with enflurane following induction with thiopentone, and intravenous anaesthesia (IVA) with propofol. The aims of our study were to compare the costs, effectiveness and side effects of the anaesthetics involved in these two techniques, and to measure significant clinical parameters. METHODS. After approval by the hospital ethics committee, 40 adult patients of ASA physical status 1 and 2 who had been scheduled for elective septorhinoplasty and had given informed consent were entered in our prospective, single-blind randomized study. In 20 patients anaesthesia was induced with thiopentone (4-5 mg/kg) and suxamethonium (1-1.5 mg/kg) and maintained with enflurane. The other 20 patients received an initial i.v. bolus of propofol (2-2.5 mg/kg) followed by a propofol infusion adjusted to their individual clinical needs. Ventilation was performed in both groups with 70% nitrous oxide in oxygen, using a nonrebreathing system. Muscle relaxation was maintained with atracurium. The amounts of anaesthetics, oxygen, nitrous oxide, and muscle relaxants used were measured and a record of the costs was kept. In addition, circulatory and respiratory parameters and quantitative and qualitative aspects of recovery from anaesthesia were recorded. RESULTS. The biometric and clinical data did not differ significantly between the two groups. For induction, 382 (+/- 55.9) mg thiopentone costing 1.24 Swiss francs (SFr), or 172 (+/- 25.1) mg propofol costing 11.87 (SFr) was used. For maintenance, 28.3 (+/- 6.4) ml enflurane costing 21.96 SFr/h, or 450.7 (+/- 247) mg propofol costing 29.75 SFr/h was required. The need for muscle relaxants, oxygen, and nitrous oxide was also not significantly different in the two groups. Additional expenses were due to relaxation antagonists (1.91 SFr per patient in both groups) and to the perfusion pump system (8.60 SFr per patient in the IVA group only). Circulatory and respiratory parameters remained normal in both groups. In the propofol group, the heart rate tended to increase more at the beginning of anaesthesia, whereas later on it showed a tendency to lower values than in the thiopentone/enflurane group. Patients receiving IVA generally had a shorter awakening period, a higher degree of wellbeing during recovery, and needed less systemic analgesics (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS. Costs of anaesthetic drugs in the IV group totalled 54.50 SFr during the first hour, i.e. 1.65 times the costs in the thiopentone/enflurane group for the same time. However, with continuing duration of anaesthesia this ratio declines to 1.43 in anaesthesia lasting 2 h. In addition, IVA patients had a noticeably faster and far more pleasant recovery. Minute ventilation, oxygen consumption, heart rate and CO2 production indicated a less pronounced stress response and sympathetic activity during and after propofol. Quicker recovery of cognitive and psychomotor abilities, less postoperative pain and less impairment of respiratory function after IVA may lead to an earlier release from the postoperative recovery unit. This might be a cost-reducing factor that should be taken into account when these two anaesthetic regimens are concerned.

A multifactorial approach to understanding anesthesia selection.

A full hospital cost accounting model to track the total costs of surgery and anesthesia for inpatients, from the perspective of a hospital CFO, utilizing time-allocation methodology is presented. This model was tested in a prospective multicenter economic clinical trial in three settings.

Open comparative study of the efficacy, safety and tolerability of midazolam versus thiopental in induction and maintenance of anaesthesia.

In a multicentre study, 145 adult Nigerian patients presenting with diverse conditions (falling into ASA1 or ASA2 classification) for short surgical procedures (< 1 hour) were given either midazolam (0.15-0.20 mg/kg) or thiopentone (4-6 mg/kg) intravenously for induction of anaesthesia. Study population consisted of 58 male and 89 female patients with a mean age of 33.5 +/- 10.42 years. The primary efficacy criteria for induction of anaesthesia was induction time measured by the time of spontaneous closing of eyes and disappearance of palpebral reflexes following injection of trial drug. For maintenance of anaesthesia efficacy was assessed by the requirement of an additional dose of the anaesthetic agent either alone or in combination with other agents in addition to N20/O2 mixture. The secondary efficacy criteria was the degree of anterograde amnesia produced by trial drug, this was assessed by memory test. Safety was assessed by the frequency of the incidence of apnoea and cardio-stability measured by changes in the haemodynamic parameters (BP and pulse). Tolerability was evaluated by incidence of phlebitis or pain at the injection site. The standard efficacy population was all the 145 patients while only 100 patients were considered evaluable for maintenance efficacy. The mean induction time was 67.28 +/- 63.36 secs and 31.28 +/- 13.01 secs for the midazolam and thiopentone groups respectively. Anaesthesia was maintained with N20/O2 alone in 47% of patients in the midazolam group compared with 28.6% of patients in the thiopentone group. The degree of anterograde amnesia was significantly more pronounced in the midazolam group than in the thiopentone group (p = 0.000).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Reconstituted thiopentone retains its alkalinity without bacterial contamination for up to four weeks.

The manufacturers of thiopentone recommend that after reconstitution, it should be kept only for 24 hr to reduce the risk of contamination. However, there are no studies to support this practice and compliance with this recommendation has economic implications. The reasons for discarding a reconstituted bottle of thiopentone are related to concerns about chemical and physical (pH) stability, contamination with infectious agents, and contamination with cellular material. We studied the incidence of bacterial contamination and pH stability of thiopentone in clinical use, as well as the pH stability of thiopentone not in clinical use, and surveyed the eight hospitals affiliated with the University of British Columbia to determine their protocols for thiopental preparation and storage. Cost comparisons were made between our current practice of discarding thiopentone when depleted and the practice of routinely discarding it 24 hr after reconstitution. Samples of thiopentone in clinical use were cultured daily and the pH was measured. The bottles had been in clinical use from 1 to 25 days (mean 4.23 +/- 4.32 SD). Of 106 samples there were no positive bacteriological cultures and there were only minor changes in pH. The telephone survey of the eight hospitals revealed that only one had a policy to discard thiopentone after 24 hr. Cost comparisons indicate that discarding thiopentone 24 hr after reconstitution would result in increased cost. In conclusion, reconstituted thiopentone retains its alkalinity for up to four weeks, and has an acceptably low risk of bacterial contamination for periods beyond 24 hr, therefore thiopentone need not be discarded after 24 hr.