Cost-effectiveness analysis on spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Vaz,Filinto Aníbal Alagia
Publication Date: 2010
Other Authors: Abreu,Rone Antônio Alves, Soárez,Patrícia Coelho de, Speranzini,Manlio Basílio, Fernandes,Luís Cesar, Matos,Delcio
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: Arquivos de gastroenterologia (Online)
Download full: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-28032010000200008
Summary: CONTEXT: Studies in the area of health economics are still poorly explored and it is known that the cost savings in this area is becoming more necessary, provided that strict criteria. OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure. METHODS: This was a randomized clinical trial with 50 patients undergoing loop colostomy closure either under spinal anesthesia (n = 25) or under local anesthesia plus sedation (n = 25). The duration of the operation, time spent in the post-anesthesia recovery room, pain, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, laboratory and imaging examinations and need for rehospitalization and reoperation were analyzed. The direct medical costs were analyzed. A decision tree model was constructed. The outcome measures were mean cost and cost per local and systemic postoperative complications avoided. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were presented. RESULTS: Duration of operation: 146 ± 111.5 min. vs 105 ± 23.6 min. (P = 0.012); mean time spent in post-anesthesia recovery room: 145 ± 110.8 min. vs 36.8 ± 34.6 min. (P<0.001). Immediate postoperative pain was lower with local anesthesia plus sedation (P<0.05). Local and systemic complications were fewer with local anesthesia plus sedation (P = 0.209). Hospitalization + rehospitalization: 4.5 ± 4.1 days vs 2.9 ± 2.2 days (P<0.0001); mean spending per patient: R$ 5,038.05 vs 2,665.57 (P<0.001). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: R$ -474.78, indicating that the strategy with local anesthesia plus sedation is cost saving. CONCLUSION: In the present investigation, loop colostomy closure under local anesthesia plus sedation was effective and appeared to be a dominant strategy, compared with the same surgical procedure under spinal anesthesia.
id IBEPEGE-1_f753c6c8ecc56d6570ffb7808114666d
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0004-28032010000200008
network_acronym_str IBEPEGE-1
network_name_str Arquivos de gastroenterologia (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Cost-effectiveness analysis on spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closureColostomyAnesthesia, localAnesthesia, spinalConcious sedationCosts and cost analysisCONTEXT: Studies in the area of health economics are still poorly explored and it is known that the cost savings in this area is becoming more necessary, provided that strict criteria. OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure. METHODS: This was a randomized clinical trial with 50 patients undergoing loop colostomy closure either under spinal anesthesia (n = 25) or under local anesthesia plus sedation (n = 25). The duration of the operation, time spent in the post-anesthesia recovery room, pain, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, laboratory and imaging examinations and need for rehospitalization and reoperation were analyzed. The direct medical costs were analyzed. A decision tree model was constructed. The outcome measures were mean cost and cost per local and systemic postoperative complications avoided. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were presented. RESULTS: Duration of operation: 146 ± 111.5 min. vs 105 ± 23.6 min. (P = 0.012); mean time spent in post-anesthesia recovery room: 145 ± 110.8 min. vs 36.8 ± 34.6 min. (P<0.001). Immediate postoperative pain was lower with local anesthesia plus sedation (P<0.05). Local and systemic complications were fewer with local anesthesia plus sedation (P = 0.209). Hospitalization + rehospitalization: 4.5 ± 4.1 days vs 2.9 ± 2.2 days (P<0.0001); mean spending per patient: R$ 5,038.05 vs 2,665.57 (P<0.001). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: R$ -474.78, indicating that the strategy with local anesthesia plus sedation is cost saving. CONCLUSION: In the present investigation, loop colostomy closure under local anesthesia plus sedation was effective and appeared to be a dominant strategy, compared with the same surgical procedure under spinal anesthesia.Instituto Brasileiro de Estudos e Pesquisas de Gastroenterologia e Outras Especialidades - IBEPEGE. 2010-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-28032010000200008Arquivos de Gastroenterologia v.47 n.2 2010reponame:Arquivos de gastroenterologia (Online)instname:Instituto Brasileiro de Estudos e Pesquisas de Gastroenterologiainstacron:IBEPEGE10.1590/S0004-28032010000200008info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessVaz,Filinto Aníbal AlagiaAbreu,Rone Antônio AlvesSoárez,Patrícia Coelho deSperanzini,Manlio BasílioFernandes,Luís CesarMatos,Delcioeng2010-09-22T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0004-28032010000200008Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/aghttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||secretariaarqgastr@hospitaligesp.com.br1678-42190004-2803opendoar:2010-09-22T00:00Arquivos de gastroenterologia (Online) - Instituto Brasileiro de Estudos e Pesquisas de Gastroenterologiafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Cost-effectiveness analysis on spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure
title Cost-effectiveness analysis on spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure
spellingShingle Cost-effectiveness analysis on spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure
Vaz,Filinto Aníbal Alagia
Colostomy
Anesthesia, local
Anesthesia, spinal
Concious sedation
Costs and cost analysis
title_short Cost-effectiveness analysis on spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure
title_full Cost-effectiveness analysis on spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness analysis on spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness analysis on spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure
title_sort Cost-effectiveness analysis on spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure
author Vaz,Filinto Aníbal Alagia
author_facet Vaz,Filinto Aníbal Alagia
Abreu,Rone Antônio Alves
Soárez,Patrícia Coelho de
Speranzini,Manlio Basílio
Fernandes,Luís Cesar
Matos,Delcio
author_role author
author2 Abreu,Rone Antônio Alves
Soárez,Patrícia Coelho de
Speranzini,Manlio Basílio
Fernandes,Luís Cesar
Matos,Delcio
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Vaz,Filinto Aníbal Alagia
Abreu,Rone Antônio Alves
Soárez,Patrícia Coelho de
Speranzini,Manlio Basílio
Fernandes,Luís Cesar
Matos,Delcio
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Colostomy
Anesthesia, local
Anesthesia, spinal
Concious sedation
Costs and cost analysis
topic Colostomy
Anesthesia, local
Anesthesia, spinal
Concious sedation
Costs and cost analysis
description CONTEXT: Studies in the area of health economics are still poorly explored and it is known that the cost savings in this area is becoming more necessary, provided that strict criteria. OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure. METHODS: This was a randomized clinical trial with 50 patients undergoing loop colostomy closure either under spinal anesthesia (n = 25) or under local anesthesia plus sedation (n = 25). The duration of the operation, time spent in the post-anesthesia recovery room, pain, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, laboratory and imaging examinations and need for rehospitalization and reoperation were analyzed. The direct medical costs were analyzed. A decision tree model was constructed. The outcome measures were mean cost and cost per local and systemic postoperative complications avoided. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were presented. RESULTS: Duration of operation: 146 ± 111.5 min. vs 105 ± 23.6 min. (P = 0.012); mean time spent in post-anesthesia recovery room: 145 ± 110.8 min. vs 36.8 ± 34.6 min. (P<0.001). Immediate postoperative pain was lower with local anesthesia plus sedation (P<0.05). Local and systemic complications were fewer with local anesthesia plus sedation (P = 0.209). Hospitalization + rehospitalization: 4.5 ± 4.1 days vs 2.9 ± 2.2 days (P<0.0001); mean spending per patient: R$ 5,038.05 vs 2,665.57 (P<0.001). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: R$ -474.78, indicating that the strategy with local anesthesia plus sedation is cost saving. CONCLUSION: In the present investigation, loop colostomy closure under local anesthesia plus sedation was effective and appeared to be a dominant strategy, compared with the same surgical procedure under spinal anesthesia.
publishDate 2010
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2010-06-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-28032010000200008
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-28032010000200008
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S0004-28032010000200008
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Instituto Brasileiro de Estudos e Pesquisas de Gastroenterologia e Outras Especialidades - IBEPEGE.
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Instituto Brasileiro de Estudos e Pesquisas de Gastroenterologia e Outras Especialidades - IBEPEGE.
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Arquivos de Gastroenterologia v.47 n.2 2010
reponame:Arquivos de gastroenterologia (Online)
instname:Instituto Brasileiro de Estudos e Pesquisas de Gastroenterologia
instacron:IBEPEGE
instname_str Instituto Brasileiro de Estudos e Pesquisas de Gastroenterologia
instacron_str IBEPEGE
institution IBEPEGE
reponame_str Arquivos de gastroenterologia (Online)
collection Arquivos de gastroenterologia (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Arquivos de gastroenterologia (Online) - Instituto Brasileiro de Estudos e Pesquisas de Gastroenterologia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||secretariaarqgastr@hospitaligesp.com.br
_version_ 1754193345512472576