[Comparative study of hospital costs associated with human albumin 20% (Vialebex 20%) or polygeline as a fluid resuscitation strategy for cirrhotic ascites]. / Etude comparative des coûts hospitaliers liés à une stratégie de remplissage vasculaire par albumine humaine à 20% (Vialebex 20%) ou par polygéline dans le traitement des ascites cirrhotiques.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the hospital costs associated with two fluid resuscitation strategies for cirrhotic ascites: one with human albumin 20% (Vialebex 20%) and one with polygeline. METHODS: Multicenter prospective randomized double-blinded comparative trial (that also compared efficacy and tolerance). The economic evaluation was based on direct medical costs throughout the follow-up period: days of hospitalization, hospital consultations, medical procedures, and fluid resuscitation products. This cost-minimization study had a 6-month follow-up period. Daily costs in euros were adjusted over a 30-day period. The study was interrupted prematurely because of an alert due to the bovine origin of the polygeline, and the inclusion objectives could therefore not be met. RESULTS: The economic analysis included all patients in the efficacy population (group receiving human albumin 20%: n=30, polygeline group: n=38). It found a standardized cost per patient for 30 days of treatment that was significantly lower (p=0.004) for human albumin 20% (median: 1915 euro; range: 1330-4105) than for polygeline (median: 4612 euro; range: 2138-12234). This difference is related mainly to a reduction in the frequency and duration of hospitalization in specialized units, but also to other aspects of management: hospitalization in other departments, specific solutions for the study products, and hospital procedures. CONCLUSION: The economic results of this trial favor a fluid resuscitation strategy that uses human albumin 20% for cirrhotic patients. They are consistent with the clinical results and help assess the cost-benefit ratio of human albumin 20% for this indication.

A prospective randomized study comparing two techniques of perioperative blood conservation: isovolemic hemodilution and hypervolemic hemodilution.

UNLABELLED: We compared hypervolemic hemodilution (HVH) and isovolemic hemodilution (IVH) as means of perioperative blood conservation under standardized conditions. Thirty ASA status I/II adults slated for orthopedic, ear-nose-throat, or general surgery with expected blood loss of >500 mL underwent either IVH (n = 15) or HVH (n = 15). They were hemodiluted to a hematocrit (Hct) of 25% by blood withdrawal and simultaneous polygeline (Hemaccel((R))) infusion (IVH) or by infusing polygeline without blood withdrawal, thus creating hypervolemia (HVH). Further blood loss to a Hct of 20% was allowed before autologous/allogeneic blood transfusion to aim for a 24-h postoperative Hct of > or =25%. Systolic blood pressure (P = 0.0107) and central venous pressure (P = 0.0281) were significantly higher during HVH. The mean difference (MD) between the target postdilution Hct of 25% and the Hct achieved was not statistically significant in either group (MD [95% confidence interval; CI], 0% [-0.7% to 0.7%] for IVH and 0.6% [-0.1% to 1.3%] for HVH). The actual amount of allogeneic blood used was similar in the two groups, with an MD (95% CI) of -7 (-326 to 312), and was significantly less than the corresponding projected amount (MD [95% CI], -581 mL [-753 to -409 mL] in IVH; -376 mL [-531 to -221] in HVH). The two techniques were similar in time taken (MD [95% CI] = 7 min [-0.5 to 14.5 min]), cost incurred (MD [95% CI] = $1.7 (-$4.10 to $7.50]), and volumes of polygeline used (MD [95% CI] = -6 mL/kg body weight [-16 to 4 mL/kg body weight]). This study found IVH and HVH comparable in significantly reducing perioperative allogeneic blood requirements, time needed, and cost incurred. The formula used for achieving the desired HVH appears promising. IMPLICATIONS: Both hypervolemic hemodilution (HVH) and isovolemic hemodilution (IVH) claim to reduce red blood cell loss during surgery by diluting the patient's blood. This study found both comparable in significantly reducing the exposure to bank blood in the perioperative period, the time needed, and the cost incurred. HVH, being simpler, because it does not involve blood withdrawal, appeared superior to IVH in the healthy adults studied. Larger studies are needed to substantiate the results.