Limits...
Cost analysis of three techniques of administering sevoflurane.

Tyagi A, Venkateswaran V, Jain AK, Verma UC - Anesthesiol Res Pract (2014)

Bottom Line: Background.Results.Once the cost of propofol used for induction in two of the three groups was added to that of sevoflurane, cost incurred was least with the technique using sevoflurane both for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia, as compared to low flow and alternative low flow techniques, a 26% and 32% cost saving, respectively (P < 0.05).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, University College of Medical Sciences and GTB Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi 110095, India.

ABSTRACT
Background. This study aimed to evaluate and compare total cost of sevoflurane and propofol for 1.0 MAC-hour of anaesthesia, employing three anaesthetic techniques. Methods. Adult patients scheduled for surgical procedures under general anaesthesia anticipated to last approximately an hour were randomized into three groups (n = 15 each), to receive anaesthesia using one of the following techniques: low flow technique involving induction with propofol, followed by sevoflurane delivered using initial fresh gas flows of 6 L/min till MAC reached 1.0 and then reduced to 0.5 L/min; alternate method of low flow entailing only a difference in fresh gas flow rates being maintained at 1 L/min throughout; the third technique involving use of sevoflurane for both induction and maintenance of anaesthesia. Results. Cost of sevoflurane to maintain 1 MAC-hour of anaesthesia was clinically least with low flow anaesthesia, though statistically similar amongst the three techniques. Once the cost of propofol used for induction in two of the three groups was added to that of sevoflurane, cost incurred was least with the technique using sevoflurane both for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia, as compared to low flow and alternative low flow techniques, a 26% and 32% cost saving, respectively (P < 0.05).

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

MAC of sevoflurane versus time. Group L: low flow anaesthesia, Group A: alternative method of low flow anaesthesia, and Group V: volatile induction and maintenance of anaesthesia.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4230195&req=5

fig1: MAC of sevoflurane versus time. Group L: low flow anaesthesia, Group A: alternative method of low flow anaesthesia, and Group V: volatile induction and maintenance of anaesthesia.

Mentions: Figure 1 shows the intraoperative MAC of sevoflurane in the three groups. At the time of induction (time = 0; Figure 1) the MAC of sevoflurane was zero in Groups L and A since anaesthesia was induced using intravenous agent, with consequent lack of sevoflurane in the fresh gas mixture. In contrast, MAC of approximately 2.0 was observed for Group V at this time since the breathing system was primed prior to induction (time = 0; Figure 1). Following induction, intraoperative MAC of 1 ± 0.2 was maintained in all three groups by titrating the sevoflurane output. Figure 2 shows the FE/FI curves, representing ratio of end-tidal to inspired concentration for sevoflurane, for each of the three groups.


Cost analysis of three techniques of administering sevoflurane.

Tyagi A, Venkateswaran V, Jain AK, Verma UC - Anesthesiol Res Pract (2014)

MAC of sevoflurane versus time. Group L: low flow anaesthesia, Group A: alternative method of low flow anaesthesia, and Group V: volatile induction and maintenance of anaesthesia.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4230195&req=5

fig1: MAC of sevoflurane versus time. Group L: low flow anaesthesia, Group A: alternative method of low flow anaesthesia, and Group V: volatile induction and maintenance of anaesthesia.
Mentions: Figure 1 shows the intraoperative MAC of sevoflurane in the three groups. At the time of induction (time = 0; Figure 1) the MAC of sevoflurane was zero in Groups L and A since anaesthesia was induced using intravenous agent, with consequent lack of sevoflurane in the fresh gas mixture. In contrast, MAC of approximately 2.0 was observed for Group V at this time since the breathing system was primed prior to induction (time = 0; Figure 1). Following induction, intraoperative MAC of 1 ± 0.2 was maintained in all three groups by titrating the sevoflurane output. Figure 2 shows the FE/FI curves, representing ratio of end-tidal to inspired concentration for sevoflurane, for each of the three groups.

Bottom Line: Background.Results.Once the cost of propofol used for induction in two of the three groups was added to that of sevoflurane, cost incurred was least with the technique using sevoflurane both for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia, as compared to low flow and alternative low flow techniques, a 26% and 32% cost saving, respectively (P < 0.05).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, University College of Medical Sciences and GTB Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi 110095, India.

ABSTRACT
Background. This study aimed to evaluate and compare total cost of sevoflurane and propofol for 1.0 MAC-hour of anaesthesia, employing three anaesthetic techniques. Methods. Adult patients scheduled for surgical procedures under general anaesthesia anticipated to last approximately an hour were randomized into three groups (n = 15 each), to receive anaesthesia using one of the following techniques: low flow technique involving induction with propofol, followed by sevoflurane delivered using initial fresh gas flows of 6 L/min till MAC reached 1.0 and then reduced to 0.5 L/min; alternate method of low flow entailing only a difference in fresh gas flow rates being maintained at 1 L/min throughout; the third technique involving use of sevoflurane for both induction and maintenance of anaesthesia. Results. Cost of sevoflurane to maintain 1 MAC-hour of anaesthesia was clinically least with low flow anaesthesia, though statistically similar amongst the three techniques. Once the cost of propofol used for induction in two of the three groups was added to that of sevoflurane, cost incurred was least with the technique using sevoflurane both for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia, as compared to low flow and alternative low flow techniques, a 26% and 32% cost saving, respectively (P < 0.05).

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus