No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Patient-controlled Analgesia Versus Regular Intramuscular Opioid Therapy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 1999
Objectives: To assess the economics of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) treatment versus regular intramuscular (IM) injections of opioid analgesia for pain management after hysterectomy.
Methods: Cost-minimization analysis was used based on the comparable pain control results achieved in the two treatment groups. Observations were taken of treatment-related events with personnel (mostly nursing) time implications during the trial. Times were then associated with these events in an independent study of personnel activity. Costs were linked by using average wage rates for the various personnel for the Montreal area during the time of the study. Drug and material costs were hospital acquisition costs for all items. The cost of the PCA pump itself was not included in the analysis. Several analyses were performed to test the sensitivity of the results to various assumptions.
Results: The results for total costs of the two therapies generally showed PCA to be more costly than regular IM injections despite no costs of the pump being included in the analyses. These results were robust with respect to changes in assumptions. Even when intentionally biasing the analysis against IM therapy, it was difficult to obtain results that favored PCA.
Conclusions: Based upon the institutions and assumptions in this analysis, PCA offers no cost advantages over regular IM therapy in the pain management after hysterectomy. Regular IM injections provided less costly analgesia.