平衡全身麻醉和全静脉麻醉(TIVA)技术的直接费用比较

Jairo C. Guevara-Farias, D. Rincón-Valenzuela, Ciro Gómez-Ardila
{"title":"平衡全身麻醉和全静脉麻醉(TIVA)技术的直接费用比较","authors":"Jairo C. Guevara-Farias, D. Rincón-Valenzuela, Ciro Gómez-Ardila","doi":"10.5554/22562087.e1021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Healthcare costs are increasing against the backdrop of scarce resources. Surgical procedures are an important part of healthcare spending, and the cost of anesthetic techniques is relevant as part of the total cost of care and it is a potential target for expenditure optimization. Although important economic differences have been reported internationally for general anesthesia options, there are no publications in Colombia that compare current costs and allow for informed and financially responsible decision-making. \nObjective: To quantify and compare direct costs associated with the various general anesthesia options most frequently used at the present time. \nMethods: Cost minimization analysis based on a theoretical model of balanced general anesthesia using isoflurane, sevoflurane, desflurane in combination with remifentanil, and TIVA (propofol and remifentanil). Initial results were obtained using a deterministic simulation method and a sensitivity analysis was performed using a Monte Carlo simulation. \nResults: The average total cost per case for the different anesthetic techniques was COP 126381 for sevoflurane, COP 97706 for isoflurane, COP 288605 for desflurane and COP 222 960 for TIVA. \nConclusions: Balanced general anesthesia with desflurane is the most costly alternative, 1.2 times more expensive than TIVA, and 2 and 3 times more costly than balanced anesthesia with sevoflurane and isoflurane, respectively. TIVA ranks second with a cost 1.8 times higher than balanced anesthesia with sevoflurane and 2.5 times higher than balanced anesthesia with isoflurane.","PeriodicalId":36529,"journal":{"name":"Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of direct costs associated with the use of balanced general anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) techniques\",\"authors\":\"Jairo C. Guevara-Farias, D. Rincón-Valenzuela, Ciro Gómez-Ardila\",\"doi\":\"10.5554/22562087.e1021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Healthcare costs are increasing against the backdrop of scarce resources. Surgical procedures are an important part of healthcare spending, and the cost of anesthetic techniques is relevant as part of the total cost of care and it is a potential target for expenditure optimization. Although important economic differences have been reported internationally for general anesthesia options, there are no publications in Colombia that compare current costs and allow for informed and financially responsible decision-making. \\nObjective: To quantify and compare direct costs associated with the various general anesthesia options most frequently used at the present time. \\nMethods: Cost minimization analysis based on a theoretical model of balanced general anesthesia using isoflurane, sevoflurane, desflurane in combination with remifentanil, and TIVA (propofol and remifentanil). Initial results were obtained using a deterministic simulation method and a sensitivity analysis was performed using a Monte Carlo simulation. \\nResults: The average total cost per case for the different anesthetic techniques was COP 126381 for sevoflurane, COP 97706 for isoflurane, COP 288605 for desflurane and COP 222 960 for TIVA. \\nConclusions: Balanced general anesthesia with desflurane is the most costly alternative, 1.2 times more expensive than TIVA, and 2 and 3 times more costly than balanced anesthesia with sevoflurane and isoflurane, respectively. TIVA ranks second with a cost 1.8 times higher than balanced anesthesia with sevoflurane and 2.5 times higher than balanced anesthesia with isoflurane.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5554/22562087.e1021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5554/22562087.e1021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:在资源稀缺的背景下,医疗保健成本正在增加。外科手术是医疗支出的重要组成部分,麻醉技术的成本是医疗总成本的一部分,也是支出优化的潜在目标。尽管国际上已经报道了全麻选择的重要经济差异,但哥伦比亚没有任何出版物比较当前的成本,并允许做出知情和财务负责的决策。目的:量化和比较目前最常用的各种全身麻醉方案的直接成本。方法:基于异氟烷、七氟醚、地氟醚联合瑞芬太尼和TIVA(丙泊酚和瑞芬太尼)的平衡全麻理论模型进行成本最小化分析。使用确定性模拟方法获得初始结果,并使用蒙特卡罗模拟进行灵敏度分析。结果:不同麻醉技术的平均每例总成本为七氟醚COP 126381、异氟醚COP 97706、地氟醚COP 288605和TIVA COP 222960。结论:地氟醚平衡全麻是成本最高的替代方案,其成本分别是TIVA的1.2倍和七氟醚和异氟醚平衡麻醉的2倍和3倍。TIVA排名第二,其成本是七氟烷平衡麻醉的1.8倍,是异氟醚平衡麻醉的2.5倍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of direct costs associated with the use of balanced general anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) techniques
Introduction: Healthcare costs are increasing against the backdrop of scarce resources. Surgical procedures are an important part of healthcare spending, and the cost of anesthetic techniques is relevant as part of the total cost of care and it is a potential target for expenditure optimization. Although important economic differences have been reported internationally for general anesthesia options, there are no publications in Colombia that compare current costs and allow for informed and financially responsible decision-making. Objective: To quantify and compare direct costs associated with the various general anesthesia options most frequently used at the present time. Methods: Cost minimization analysis based on a theoretical model of balanced general anesthesia using isoflurane, sevoflurane, desflurane in combination with remifentanil, and TIVA (propofol and remifentanil). Initial results were obtained using a deterministic simulation method and a sensitivity analysis was performed using a Monte Carlo simulation. Results: The average total cost per case for the different anesthetic techniques was COP 126381 for sevoflurane, COP 97706 for isoflurane, COP 288605 for desflurane and COP 222 960 for TIVA. Conclusions: Balanced general anesthesia with desflurane is the most costly alternative, 1.2 times more expensive than TIVA, and 2 and 3 times more costly than balanced anesthesia with sevoflurane and isoflurane, respectively. TIVA ranks second with a cost 1.8 times higher than balanced anesthesia with sevoflurane and 2.5 times higher than balanced anesthesia with isoflurane.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology
Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
The environmental responsibility of modern anesthesiology and perioperative care Características del paro cardiaco extrahospitalario atendido por operadores de ambulancias en Medellín. Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo de base poblacional Shortage of perioperative supplies and drugs: Theory and practical implications Respuesta hemodinámica a dosis subanestésicas de ketamina en dolor posoperatorio: revisión sistemática ChatGPT's learning and reasoning capacity in anesthesiology
×
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