Bisulfite-containing propofol: Is it a cost-effective alternative to Diprivan(TM) for induction of anesthesia?

Xinli Shao, Hong Li, Paul F. White, Kevin W. Klein, Christine Kulstad, Andrew Owens

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Propofol (Diprivan(TM); AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) is a commonly used drug for the induction of general anesthesia in the ambulatory setting. With the availability of a new bisulfite-containing generic formulation of propofol, questions have arisen regarding its cost effectiveness and safety compared with Diprivan(TM). Two hundred healthy outpatients were randomly assigned, according to a double-blinded protocol, to receive either Diprivan(TM) or bisulfite-containing propofol 1.5 mg/kg IV as part of a standardized induction sequence. Maintenance of anesthesia consisted of either desflurane (4%-8% end-tidal) or sevoflurane (1%-2% end-tidal) in combination with a remifentanil infusion (0.125 μg · kg-1 · min-1 IV). Patient assessments included pain on injection, induction time, hemodynamic and bispectral electroencephalographic changes during induction, emergence time, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The two propofol groups were comparable demographically, and the induction times and bispectral index values during the induction were also similar. However, the bisulfite-containing formulation was associated with less severe pain on injection (5% vs 11%), with fewer patients recalling pain on injection after surgery (38% vs 51%, P < 0.05). None of the patients manifested allergic-type reactions after the induction of anesthesia. The acquisition cost (average wholesale price in US dollars) of a 20-mL ampoule of Diprivan(TM) was $15 compared with $13 for the bisulfite-containing propofol formulation. Therefore, we concluded that the bisulfite-containing formulation of propofol is a cost-effective alternative to Diprivan(TM) for the induction of outpatient anesthesia.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)871-875
Number of pages5
JournalAnesthesia and Analgesia
Volume91
Issue number4
StatePublished - 2000

Fingerprint

Propofol
Anesthesia
Costs and Cost Analysis
Injections
hydrogen sulfite
Outpatients
Pain
Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
Pain Measurement
General Anesthesia
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Hypersensitivity
Hemodynamics
Maintenance
Safety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

Bisulfite-containing propofol : Is it a cost-effective alternative to Diprivan(TM) for induction of anesthesia? / Shao, Xinli; Li, Hong; White, Paul F.; Klein, Kevin W.; Kulstad, Christine; Owens, Andrew.

In: Anesthesia and Analgesia, Vol. 91, No. 4, 2000, p. 871-875.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{361ad5a67fc146359ce379b74e29727b,
title = "Bisulfite-containing propofol: Is it a cost-effective alternative to Diprivan(TM) for induction of anesthesia?",
abstract = "Propofol (Diprivan(TM); AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) is a commonly used drug for the induction of general anesthesia in the ambulatory setting. With the availability of a new bisulfite-containing generic formulation of propofol, questions have arisen regarding its cost effectiveness and safety compared with Diprivan(TM). Two hundred healthy outpatients were randomly assigned, according to a double-blinded protocol, to receive either Diprivan(TM) or bisulfite-containing propofol 1.5 mg/kg IV as part of a standardized induction sequence. Maintenance of anesthesia consisted of either desflurane (4{\%}-8{\%} end-tidal) or sevoflurane (1{\%}-2{\%} end-tidal) in combination with a remifentanil infusion (0.125 μg · kg-1 · min-1 IV). Patient assessments included pain on injection, induction time, hemodynamic and bispectral electroencephalographic changes during induction, emergence time, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The two propofol groups were comparable demographically, and the induction times and bispectral index values during the induction were also similar. However, the bisulfite-containing formulation was associated with less severe pain on injection (5{\%} vs 11{\%}), with fewer patients recalling pain on injection after surgery (38{\%} vs 51{\%}, P < 0.05). None of the patients manifested allergic-type reactions after the induction of anesthesia. The acquisition cost (average wholesale price in US dollars) of a 20-mL ampoule of Diprivan(TM) was $15 compared with $13 for the bisulfite-containing propofol formulation. Therefore, we concluded that the bisulfite-containing formulation of propofol is a cost-effective alternative to Diprivan(TM) for the induction of outpatient anesthesia.",
author = "Xinli Shao and Hong Li and White, {Paul F.} and Klein, {Kevin W.} and Christine Kulstad and Andrew Owens",
year = "2000",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "91",
pages = "871--875",
journal = "Anesthesia and Analgesia",
issn = "0003-2999",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bisulfite-containing propofol

T2 - Is it a cost-effective alternative to Diprivan(TM) for induction of anesthesia?

AU - Shao, Xinli

AU - Li, Hong

AU - White, Paul F.

AU - Klein, Kevin W.

AU - Kulstad, Christine

AU - Owens, Andrew

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - Propofol (Diprivan(TM); AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) is a commonly used drug for the induction of general anesthesia in the ambulatory setting. With the availability of a new bisulfite-containing generic formulation of propofol, questions have arisen regarding its cost effectiveness and safety compared with Diprivan(TM). Two hundred healthy outpatients were randomly assigned, according to a double-blinded protocol, to receive either Diprivan(TM) or bisulfite-containing propofol 1.5 mg/kg IV as part of a standardized induction sequence. Maintenance of anesthesia consisted of either desflurane (4%-8% end-tidal) or sevoflurane (1%-2% end-tidal) in combination with a remifentanil infusion (0.125 μg · kg-1 · min-1 IV). Patient assessments included pain on injection, induction time, hemodynamic and bispectral electroencephalographic changes during induction, emergence time, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The two propofol groups were comparable demographically, and the induction times and bispectral index values during the induction were also similar. However, the bisulfite-containing formulation was associated with less severe pain on injection (5% vs 11%), with fewer patients recalling pain on injection after surgery (38% vs 51%, P < 0.05). None of the patients manifested allergic-type reactions after the induction of anesthesia. The acquisition cost (average wholesale price in US dollars) of a 20-mL ampoule of Diprivan(TM) was $15 compared with $13 for the bisulfite-containing propofol formulation. Therefore, we concluded that the bisulfite-containing formulation of propofol is a cost-effective alternative to Diprivan(TM) for the induction of outpatient anesthesia.

AB - Propofol (Diprivan(TM); AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) is a commonly used drug for the induction of general anesthesia in the ambulatory setting. With the availability of a new bisulfite-containing generic formulation of propofol, questions have arisen regarding its cost effectiveness and safety compared with Diprivan(TM). Two hundred healthy outpatients were randomly assigned, according to a double-blinded protocol, to receive either Diprivan(TM) or bisulfite-containing propofol 1.5 mg/kg IV as part of a standardized induction sequence. Maintenance of anesthesia consisted of either desflurane (4%-8% end-tidal) or sevoflurane (1%-2% end-tidal) in combination with a remifentanil infusion (0.125 μg · kg-1 · min-1 IV). Patient assessments included pain on injection, induction time, hemodynamic and bispectral electroencephalographic changes during induction, emergence time, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The two propofol groups were comparable demographically, and the induction times and bispectral index values during the induction were also similar. However, the bisulfite-containing formulation was associated with less severe pain on injection (5% vs 11%), with fewer patients recalling pain on injection after surgery (38% vs 51%, P < 0.05). None of the patients manifested allergic-type reactions after the induction of anesthesia. The acquisition cost (average wholesale price in US dollars) of a 20-mL ampoule of Diprivan(TM) was $15 compared with $13 for the bisulfite-containing propofol formulation. Therefore, we concluded that the bisulfite-containing formulation of propofol is a cost-effective alternative to Diprivan(TM) for the induction of outpatient anesthesia.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033795157&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033795157&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 11004040

AN - SCOPUS:0033795157

VL - 91

SP - 871

EP - 875

JO - Anesthesia and Analgesia

JF - Anesthesia and Analgesia

SN - 0003-2999

IS - 4

ER -