TY - JOUR
T1 - A cost comparison of methohexital and propofol for ambulatory anesthesia
AU - Sun, Rui
AU - Watcha, Mehernoor F.
AU - White, Paul F.
AU - Skrivanek, Gary D.
AU - Griffin, James D.
AU - Stool, Louis
AU - Murphy, Mark T.
PY - 1999
Y1 - 1999
N2 - Methohexital is eliminated more rapidly than thiopental, and early recovery compares favorably with propofol. We designed this study to evaluate the recovery profile when methohexital was used as an alternative to propofol for the induction of anesthesia before either sevoflurane or desflurane in combination with nitrous oxide. One hundred twenty patients were assigned randomly to one of four anesthetic groups: (I) methohexital-desflurane, (II) methohexital-sevoflurane, (III) propofol-desflurane, or (IV) propofol- sevoflurane. Recovery times after the anesthetic drugs, as well as the perioperative side effect profiles, were similar in all four groups. A cost- minimization analysis revealed that methohexital was less costly for the induction of anesthesia. At the fresh gas flow rates used during this study, the costs of the volatile anesthetics for maintenance of anesthesia did not differ among the four groups. However, at low flow rates (≤1 L/min), the methohexital-desflurane group would have been the least expensive anesthetic technique. In conclusion, methohexital is a cost-effective alternative to propofol for the induction of anesthesia in the ambulatory setting. At low fresh gas flow rates, the methohexital-desflurane combination was the most cost-effective for the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia. Implications: Using methohexital as an alternative to propofol for the induction of anesthesia for ambulatory surgery seems to reduce drug costs. When fresh gas flow rates ≤1 L/min are used, the combination of methohexital for the induction and desflurane for maintenance may be the most cost- effective general anesthetic technique for ambulatory surgery.
AB - Methohexital is eliminated more rapidly than thiopental, and early recovery compares favorably with propofol. We designed this study to evaluate the recovery profile when methohexital was used as an alternative to propofol for the induction of anesthesia before either sevoflurane or desflurane in combination with nitrous oxide. One hundred twenty patients were assigned randomly to one of four anesthetic groups: (I) methohexital-desflurane, (II) methohexital-sevoflurane, (III) propofol-desflurane, or (IV) propofol- sevoflurane. Recovery times after the anesthetic drugs, as well as the perioperative side effect profiles, were similar in all four groups. A cost- minimization analysis revealed that methohexital was less costly for the induction of anesthesia. At the fresh gas flow rates used during this study, the costs of the volatile anesthetics for maintenance of anesthesia did not differ among the four groups. However, at low flow rates (≤1 L/min), the methohexital-desflurane group would have been the least expensive anesthetic technique. In conclusion, methohexital is a cost-effective alternative to propofol for the induction of anesthesia in the ambulatory setting. At low fresh gas flow rates, the methohexital-desflurane combination was the most cost-effective for the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia. Implications: Using methohexital as an alternative to propofol for the induction of anesthesia for ambulatory surgery seems to reduce drug costs. When fresh gas flow rates ≤1 L/min are used, the combination of methohexital for the induction and desflurane for maintenance may be the most cost- effective general anesthetic technique for ambulatory surgery.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032812267&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032812267&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/00000539-199908000-00012
DO - 10.1097/00000539-199908000-00012
M3 - Article
C2 - 10439739
AN - SCOPUS:0032812267
SN - 0003-2999
VL - 89
SP - 311
EP - 316
JO - Anesthesia and analgesia
JF - Anesthesia and analgesia
IS - 2
ER -