Cost-effectiveness of anesthesia maintained with sevoflurane or propofol with and without additional monitoring: a prospective, randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Background: We compared cost-effectiveness of anesthesia maintained with sevoflurane or propofol with and without additional monitoring, in the clinical setting of ear-nose-throat surgery.

Methods: One hundred twenty adult patients were randomized to four groups. In groups SEVO and SEVO+ anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane, in group SEVO+ with additional bispectral index (BIS) and train-of-four (TOF) monitoring. In groups PROP and PROP+ anesthesia was maintained with propofol, in group PROP+ with additional BIS and TOF monitoring.

Results: Total cost of anesthesia per hour was greater in group SEVO+ compared to SEVO [€ 19.95(8.53) vs. 12.15(5.32), p < 0.001], and in group PROP+ compared to PROP (€ 22.11(8.08) vs. 13.23(4.23), p < 0.001]. Time to extubation was shorter in group SEVO+ compared to SEVO [11.1(4.7) vs. 14.5(3.9) min, p = 0.002], and in PROP+ compared to PROP [12.6(5.4) vs. 15.2(4.7) min, p < 0.001]. Postoperatively, arterial blood pressure returned to its initial values sooner in groups SEVO+ and PROP+.

Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that the use of BIS and TOF monitoring decreased the total cost of anesthesia drugs and hastened postoperative recovery. However, in our circumstances, these were associated with higher disposables costs. Detailed cost analysis and further investigations are needed to identify patient populations who would benefit most from additional monitoring.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02920749 . Retrospectively registered (date of registration September 2016).

Keywords: Anesthesia; Bispectral index; Cost; Patient safety; Train-of-four.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Regional Research Ethics Committee of the Medical Center, University of Pécs (protocol number: 316–2336/KK15/2011), and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1

The flow diagram of the study