Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:44:29.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Pharmaco-economic evaluation of a disposable patient-controlled analgesia device and intramuscular analgesia in surgical patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2006

J. D’Haese
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesiology, Flemish Free University of Brussels Medical Centre, Brussels, Belgium
C. Vanlersberghe
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesiology, Flemish Free University of Brussels Medical Centre, Brussels, Belgium
V. Umbrain
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesiology, Flemish Free University of Brussels Medical Centre, Brussels, Belgium
F. Camu
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesiology, Flemish Free University of Brussels Medical Centre, Brussels, Belgium
Get access

Abstract

The present study contrasted the pharmaco-economics and analgesic efficacy of intramuscular (i.m.) opioid treatment with a parenteral disposable patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) system in two groups of 20 female patients (ASA I–II, aged 35–69 years) scheduled for abdominal hysterectomy. The PCA group received a continuous infusion of 1.5 mg h−1 piritramide, a μ-opioid receptor agonist, with incremental doses of 1.5 mg (lock-out interval=15 min). The i.m. group received 0.3 mg kg−1 piritramide i.m. when requested by the patient with a minimum interval of 5 h. Pain intensity, sedation and the functional recovery of the patients were followed for 72 h post-operatively. The sum of pain intensity differences (SPID) was used as a measure of analgesic efficiency. Equipment and drug costs, and the demand on nursing time were recorded over 3 days post-operatively. The costs of PCA and i.m. therapies per patient were used to calculate the cost-benefit (cost of treatment vs. nursing time) and cost-effectiveness (cost of treatment vs. SPID) analyses. Both treatments initially provided comparable analgesia, but PCA was more efficient after 16 h and significantly reduced nursing time for pain treatment (PCA=61±4 min, i.m.=88±5 min; P<0.001). Functional recovery was not different for either treatment. Cost analysis indicated a better cost-benefit ratio for the i.m. treatment (0.35 vs. 1.1 for PCA treatment), but a similar cost-effectiveness for both treatments (PCA=1.9 Belgian Francs (BEF) unit−1 SPID; i.m.=1.7 BEF unit−1 SPID).

Type
Original Article
Copyright
1998 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.)