Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:55:51.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative analysis of costs of total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol and remifentanil vs. balanced anaesthesia with isoflurane and fentanyl

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2006

J. Epple ,
J. Kubitz ,
H. Schmidt ,
J. Motsch ,
B. W. Böttiger ,
E. Martin  and
A. Bach
J. Epple
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
J. Kubitz
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
H. Schmidt
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
J. Motsch
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
B. W. Böttiger
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
E. Martin
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
A. Bach
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
Get access

Abstract

Background and aim We evaluated the costs and benefits of total intravenous anaesthesia compared with a balanced anaesthesia regimen.

Methods One-hundred and twenty-four patients undergoing cataract surgery were randomized to either a pro-pofol/remifentanil or an isoflurane/fentanyl group. In the propofol/remifentanil group, both drugs were used for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia; in the isoflurane/fentanyl group, anaesthesia was induced with etomi-date and fentanyl and maintained with isoflurane and fentanyl. All patients received mivacurium for muscle relaxation and the lungs were ventilated mechanically. The use of propofol and remifentanil resulted in a faster emergence and an overall savings per case of € 12.25 due to a reduction in personnel costs which outweighs the higher drug acquisition costs.

Results In the propofol and remifentanil group, more patients were satisfied and would accept the same anaesthetic again.

Conclusion We conclude that propofol and remifentanil is more cost-effective than isoflurane/fentanyl due to its better recovery profile, reduced total direct costs and higher patient satisfaction.

Keywords

anaesthesiageneralremifentanilpropofoleconomicspharmaceuticalcost and cost analysisanaesthesia recovery period
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , January 2001 , pp. 20 - 28
Copyright
2001 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)