Efficacy and cost analysis of intravenous conscious sedation for long oral surgery procedures

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.bjoms.2024.04.006
Haidar Hassan , Rawand Shado , Ines Novo Pereira , Manisha Mistry , David Craig
{"title":"Efficacy and cost analysis of intravenous conscious sedation for long oral surgery procedures","authors":"Haidar Hassan ,&nbsp;Rawand Shado ,&nbsp;Ines Novo Pereira ,&nbsp;Manisha Mistry ,&nbsp;David Craig","doi":"10.1016/j.bjoms.2024.04.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The aim of this study was to determine what is considered a long oral surgery and conduct a cost-effective analysis of sedative agents used for intravenous sedation (IVS) and sedation protocols for such procedures. Pubmed and Google Scholar databases were used to identify human studies employing IVS for extractions and implant-related surgeries, between 2003 and July/2023. Sedation protocols and procedure lengths were documented. Sedative satisfaction, operator satisfaction, and sedation assessment were also recorded. Cost estimation was based on The British National Formulary (BNF). To assess bias, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools were employed. This review identified 29 randomised control trials (RCT), six cohorts, 14 case-series, and one case-control study. The study defined long procedures with an average duration of 31.33 minutes for extractions and 79.37 minutes for implant-related surgeries. Sedative agents identified were midazolam, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam. Cost analysis revealed midazolam as the most cost-effective option (&lt;10 pence per procedure per patient) and propofol the most expensive option (approximately £46.39). Bias analysis indicated varying degrees of bias in the included studies. Due to diverse outcome reporting, a comparative network approach was employed and revealed benefits of using dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam over midazolam. Midazolam, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam demonstrated safety and efficacy as sedative agents for conscious IVS in extended procedures like extractions or implant-related surgeries. While midazolam is the most cost-effective option, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam offer subjective and clinical benefits. The relatively higher cost of propofol may impede its widespread use. Dexmedetomidine and remimazolam stand out as closely priced options, necessitating further clinical investigations for comparative efficacy assessment.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55318,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266435624000846/pdfft?md5=216514f6c0bdaf1a7bffc1f96411b46f&pid=1-s2.0-S0266435624000846-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266435624000846","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine what is considered a long oral surgery and conduct a cost-effective analysis of sedative agents used for intravenous sedation (IVS) and sedation protocols for such procedures. Pubmed and Google Scholar databases were used to identify human studies employing IVS for extractions and implant-related surgeries, between 2003 and July/2023. Sedation protocols and procedure lengths were documented. Sedative satisfaction, operator satisfaction, and sedation assessment were also recorded. Cost estimation was based on The British National Formulary (BNF). To assess bias, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools were employed. This review identified 29 randomised control trials (RCT), six cohorts, 14 case-series, and one case-control study. The study defined long procedures with an average duration of 31.33 minutes for extractions and 79.37 minutes for implant-related surgeries. Sedative agents identified were midazolam, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam. Cost analysis revealed midazolam as the most cost-effective option (<10 pence per procedure per patient) and propofol the most expensive option (approximately £46.39). Bias analysis indicated varying degrees of bias in the included studies. Due to diverse outcome reporting, a comparative network approach was employed and revealed benefits of using dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam over midazolam. Midazolam, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam demonstrated safety and efficacy as sedative agents for conscious IVS in extended procedures like extractions or implant-related surgeries. While midazolam is the most cost-effective option, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam offer subjective and clinical benefits. The relatively higher cost of propofol may impede its widespread use. Dexmedetomidine and remimazolam stand out as closely priced options, necessitating further clinical investigations for comparative efficacy assessment.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
长时间口腔外科手术中静脉注射有意识镇静剂的疗效和成本分析
本研究的目的是确定什么是长时间口腔手术,并对用于静脉镇静(IVS)的镇静剂和此类手术的镇静方案进行成本效益分析。研究人员利用 Pubmed 和 Google Scholar 数据库查找了 2003 年至 2023 年 7 月期间在拔牙和种植相关手术中使用 IVS 的人类研究。研究记录了镇静方案和手术时间。还记录了镇静剂满意度、操作者满意度和镇静评估。成本估算基于《英国国家处方集》(BNF)。为评估偏倚,采用了 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具。本综述确定了 29 项随机对照试验 (RCT)、6 项队列研究、14 项病例系列研究和 1 项病例对照研究。研究定义了长时间手术,拔牙手术的平均持续时间为 31.33 分钟,种植相关手术的平均持续时间为 79.37 分钟。确定的镇静剂有咪达唑仑、右美托咪定、异丙酚和雷米唑仑。成本分析显示,咪达唑仑是最具成本效益的选择(每位患者每次手术 10 便士),而丙泊酚则是最昂贵的选择(约 46.39 英镑)。偏倚分析表明,纳入的研究存在不同程度的偏倚。由于结果报告不尽相同,因此采用了网络比较法,结果显示使用右美托咪定、丙泊酚和雷米马唑仑比使用咪达唑仑更有优势。咪达唑仑、右美托咪定、丙泊酚和雷米唑仑作为镇静剂,在拔牙或植入相关手术等扩展手术中进行有意识静脉注射时具有安全性和有效性。虽然咪达唑仑是最具成本效益的选择,但右美托咪定、丙泊酚和瑞美唑仑也具有主观和临床优势。异丙酚的成本相对较高,可能会阻碍其广泛使用。右美托咪定和瑞马唑仑作为价格接近的选择脱颖而出,需要进一步的临床研究来进行疗效比较评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
16.70%
发文量
256
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Journal of the British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons: • Leading articles on all aspects of surgery in the oro-facial and head and neck region • One of the largest circulations of any international journal in this field • Dedicated to enhancing surgical expertise.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Training groups / Instructions to Authors Comment on: Risk prediction of complicated course in patients undergoing major head and neck surgery with free flap reconstruction. Extreme and remarkable adaptations of oral cancer survivors in Sri Lanka. Outcomes of incidental pulmonary nodules detected in oral and oropharyngeal cancer patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1