Cost-Effectiveness of Propofol (Diprivan) Versus Inhalational Anesthetics to Maintain General Anesthesia in Noncardiac Surgery in the United States

Total Intravenous Anesthesia with Propofol Reduces Discharge Times Compared with Inhaled General Anesthesia in Shoulder Arthroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Shoulder arthroscopy is commonly performed at ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) with use of an interscalene block and inhaled general anesthesia (IGA). However, an alternative option known as total intravenous anesthesia with propofol (TIVA-P) has shown promising results in reducing recovery time for other surgeries. The objective of this study was to assess whether there is a clinically meaningful difference in post-anesthesia care unit phase-I (PACU-I) time following shoulder arthroscopy between patients receiving an interscalene block with IGA and those receiving an interscalene block with TIVA-P.

METHODS

Patients who underwent shoulder arthroscopy performed by a single surgeon at the ASC of our institution between 2020 and 2023 were enrolled. Enrollment was conducted in blocks, with up to 3 planned interim analyses. After 2 blocks, enrollment was halted because the study arms demonstrated a significant difference in the primary outcome measure, PACU-I time. A total of 96 patients were randomized into the TIVA-P and IGA groups; after patient withdrawals, the groups comprised 42 and 40 patients, respectively. Patients underwent shoulder arthroscopy with use of the anesthesia method corresponding to their assigned group. Pain, satisfaction, antiemetic use, perioperative interventions, surgical time, PACU-II time, postoperative care time, and total time until discharge were recorded and were analyzed with use of chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests with a significance cutoff of 0.0167 to account for the interim analyses.

RESULTS

Across groups, 81.7% of patients were non-Hispanic White and 58.5% were male. Significant differences were observed between the TIVA-P and IGA groups with respect to median PACU-I time (0.0 minutes [interquartile range (IQR), 0.0 to 6.0 minutes] versus 25.5 minutes [IQR, 20.5 to 32.5 minutes]; p < 0.001) and median total time until discharge (135.5 minutes [IQR, 118.5 to 156.8 minutes] versus 148.5 minutes [IQR, 133.8 to 168.8 minutes]; p = 0.0104). The TIVA-P group had a 9.1% quicker discharge time, primarily as a result of bypassing PACU-I (66.7% of patients) and spending 25.5 fewer minutes there overall. The TIVA-P group also had a lower rate of antiemetic use than the IGA group (59.5% versus 92.5% of patients; p = 0.0013). No significant differences were detected between the TIVA-P and IGA groups in terms of median pain improvement (1.0 [IQR, 0.0 to 2.0] versus 1.0 [IQR, 0.0 to 2.0]; p = 0.6734), perioperative interventions (78.6% versus 77.5% of patients, p = 1.0000), or median patient satisfaction (4.0 [IQR, 4.0 to 4.0] versus 4.0 [IQR, 3.8 to 4.0]; p = 0.4148).

CONCLUSIONS

TIVA-P showed potential to improve both PACU-I time and the total time until discharge while reducing antiemetic use without impacting pain or satisfaction. TIVA-P thus warrants consideration by orthopaedic surgeons for use in shoulder arthroscopy performed at ASCs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Predicting the Climate Impact of Healthcare Facilities Using Gradient Boosting Machines

Health care accounts for 9-10% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States. Strategies for monitoring these emissions at the hospital level are needed to decarbonize the sector. However, data collection to estimate emissions is challenging, especially for smaller hospitals. We explored the potential of gradient boosting machines (GBM) to impute missing data on resource consumption in the 2020 survey of a consortium of 283 hospitals participating in Practice Greenhealth. GBM imputed missing values for selected variables in order to predict electricity use and beef consumption (R2=0.82) and anesthetic gas desflurane use (R2=0.51), using administrative data readily available for most hospitals. After imputing missing consumption data, estimated GHG emissions associated with these three examples totaled over 3 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions (MTCO2e). Specifically, electricity consumption had the largest total carbon footprint (2.4 MTCO2e), followed by beef (0.6 million MTCO2e) and desflurane consumption (0.03 million MTCO2e) across the 283 hospitals. The approach should be applicable to other sources of hospital GHGs in order to estimate total emissions of individual hospitals and to refine survey questions to help develop better intervention strategies.

Robotic Anesthesia: A Vision for 2050

The last 2 decades have brought important developments in anesthetic technology, including robotic anesthesia. Anesthesiologists titrate the administration of pharmacological agents to the patients' physiology and the needs of surgery, using a variety of sophisticated equipment (we use the term "pilots of the human biosphere"). In anesthesia, increased safety seems coupled with increased technology and innovation. This article gives an overview of the technological developments over the past decades, both in terms of pharmacological and mechanical robots, which have laid the groundwork for robotic anesthesia: target-controlled drug infusion systems, closed-loop administration of anesthesia and sedation, mechanical robots for intubation, and the latest development in the world of communication with the arrival of artificial intelligence (AI)-derived chatbots are presented.

Effects of propofol versus sevoflurane on surgical field visibility during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

During arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR), clear surgical field visibility (SFV) is the basis of successful surgery, but the choice of anesthesia maintenance drugs may have different effects on SFV. In this study, we aimed to compare the effects of propofol- and sevoflurane-based general anesthesia on SFV in patients undergoing ARCR.

METHODS

Patients (n = 130) undergoing elective ARCR in the lateral decubitus position were randomized into either the propofol group or sevoflurane group (65 per group). The duration of surgery and increased pressure irrigation (IPI), Boezaart score, rocuronium consumption and usage of remifentanil were recorded. The time of both spontaneous respiration recovery and extubation and the incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting and agitation were also recorded.

RESULTS

The Boezaart score, duration of IPI and ratio of the duration of IPI to the duration of surgery (IPI/S ratio) were similar between the groups (P > 0.05). Rocuronium consumption, number of patients requiring remifentanil infusion and total remifentanil consumption were significantly lower in the sevoflurane group (P < 0.05). The spontaneous respiration recovery time was significantly longer in the propofol group (P < 0.05), but there were no differences in the extubation time between the groups(P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with propofol, sevoflurane provides equally clear SFV while improving the convenience of anesthesia maintenance in ARCR patients with interscalene plexus (ISB) combined with general anesthesia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This single-center, prospective, RCT was retrospective registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry with the registration number ChiCTR2300072110 (02/06/2023).

The Cost-Effectiveness of Early High-Acuity Postoperative Care for Medium-Risk Surgical Patients

BACKGROUND

Initiatives in perioperative care warrant robust cost-effectiveness analysis in a cost-constrained era when high-value care is a priority. A model of anesthesia-led early high-acuity postoperative care, advanced recovery room care (ARRC), has shown benefit in terms of hospital and patient outcomes, but its cost-effectiveness has not yet been formally determined.

METHODS

Data from a previously published single-center prospective cohort study of ARRC in medium-risk patients were used to generate a Markov model, which described patient transition between care locations, each with different characteristics and costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), using days at home (DAH) and hospital costs, was calculated for ARRC compared to usual ward care using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The Markov model accurately described patient disposition after surgery. For each patient, ARRC provided 4.3 more DAH within the first 90 days after surgery and decreased overall hospital costs by $1081 per patient. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that ARRC had a 99.3% probability of increased DAH and a 77.4% probability that ARRC was dominant from the perspective of the hospital, with improved outcomes and decreased costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Early high-acuity care for approximately 24 hours after surgery in medium-risk patients provides highly cost-effective improvements in outcomes when compared to usual ward care.

Pro-Con Debate: Should All General Anesthesia Be Done Using Target-Controlled Propofol Infusion Guided by Objective Monitoring of Depth of Anesthesia?

In this Pro-Con commentary article, we discuss whether all general anesthesia should be done using target-controlled propofol anesthesia guided by monitoring of depth of anesthesia. This is an ongoing debate since more than 25 years, representing a scientific, cultural as well as geographical divide in the anesthesia community. The Pro side argues that total intravenous anesthesia causes less postoperative nausea and higher patient satisfaction than anesthesia using volatile anesthetics. Target-controlled infusion (TCI) of anesthetic agents allows for better titration of intravenous anesthesia using pharmacokinetic models. Processed EEG monitors, such as bispectral index monitoring, allows for better assessing the effect of TCI anesthesia than solely assessment of clinical parameters, such as ECG or blood pressure. The combination of TCI propofol and objective depth of anesthesia monitoring allows creating a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic profile for each patient. Finally, anesthesia using volatile anesthetics poses health risks for healthcare professionals and contributes to greenhouse effect. The Con side argues that for procedures accompanied with ischemia and reperfusion injury of an organ or tissue and for patients suffering from a severe inflammation' the use of volatile anesthetics might well have its advantages above propofol. In times of sudden shortage of drugs, volatile anesthetics can overcome the restriction in the operating theater or even on the intensive care unit, which is another advantage. Volatile anesthetics can be used for induction of anesthesia when IV access is impossible, end-tidal measurements of volatile anesthetic concentration allows confirmation that patients receive anesthetics. Taking environmental considerations into account, both propofol and volatile anesthetics bear certain harm to the environment, be it as waste product or as greenhouse gases. The authors therefore suggest to carefully considering advantages and disadvantages for each patient in its according environment. A well-balanced choice based on the available literature is recommended. The authors recommend careful consideration of advantages and disadvantages of each technique when tailoring an anesthetic to meet patient needs. Where appropriate, anesthesia providers are encouraged to account for unique features of anesthetic drug behavior, patient-reported and observed postoperative outcomes, and economic and environmental considerations when choosing any of the 2 described techniques.

Total intravenous anesthesia versus inhalation anesthesia: how do outcomes compare?

RECENT FINDINGS

Surgical procedures that involve general anesthesia are performed with either volatile anesthetics or propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia. Both techniques are safe and provide appropriate conditions for surgery. Despite being a well established anesthetic, the use of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) remains low. Possible explanations include the perceived increase risk of awareness, lack of target controlled infusion devices, increased turnover time for device set up and individual preference.

SUMMARY

There are some scenarios where patients could potentially benefit from propofol-based TIVA rather than a volatile anesthetic (e.g. postoperative nausea and vomiting) and some other clinical scenarios where the use of propofol-based anesthesia remains controversial since the strength of the evidence remains low.

PURPOSE

In this review we will summarize the clinical evidence comparing the effect of propofol-based TIVA and volatile anesthetic on postoperative outcomes such as postoperative nausea and vomiting, postoperative pain, quality of recovery, postoperative cognitive dysfunction and cancer outcomes.

Anaesthesia and environment: impact of a green anaesthesia on economics

The excessive growth of the health sector has created an industry that, while promoting health, is now itself responsible for a significant part of global environmental pollution. The health crisis caused by climate change urges us to transform healthcare into a sustainable industry. This review aims to raise awareness about this issue and to provide practical and evidence-based recommendations for anaesthesiologists.

Comparison of Postoperative Recovery between Balanced and Total Intravenous Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass (OPCAB) Surgery: A Prospective, Single-Blind Randomized Study

Recovery after anesthesia has a significant impact on a patient's return to daily life. This study was performed to compare the postoperative quality of recovery according to the method of anesthesia administered among patients undergoing OPCAB using the Korean version of the Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40K) questionnaire. This single-blind, prospective study (trial number: KCT0004726) was performed using a population of 102 patients undergoing OPCAB under general anesthesia. The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups using a computer-generated list: a total intravenous anesthesia group (Group T) and a balanced anesthesia group (Group B). The QoR-40K score was measured preoperatively and at 24 and 48 h after extubation. There was no significant difference in the QoR-40K scores between the groups at 24 and 48 h after extubation. In addition, there were no significant differences between groups with respect to any of the five dimensions of QoR-40K at 24 and 48 h after extubation. Finally, there were no differences in the postoperative opioid consumption, time to extubation, or length of hospital stay. In this study, there was no difference in the QoR-40K score at 24 h after extubation between Groups T and B. Therefore, both methods of anesthesia are suitable for use when performing OPCAB.

Clinical practice guidelines for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) are dedicated to ensuring high-quality innovative patient care for surgical patients by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus as well as minimally invasive surgery. The ASCRS and SAGES society members involved in the creation of these guidelines were chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery and enhanced recovery. This consensus document was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus and develop clinical practice guidelines based on the best available evidence. While not proscriptive, these guidelines provide information on which decisions can be made and do not dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, healthcare workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. These guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient. This clinical practice guideline represents a collaborative effort between the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and was approved by both societies.

Ambulatory anesthesia and discharge: an update around guidelines and trends

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Provide an oversight of recent changes in same-day discharge (SDD) of patient following surgery/anesthesia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Enhanced recovery after surgery pathways in combination with less invasive surgical techniques have dramatically changed perioperative care. Preparing and optimizing patients preoperatively, minimizing surgical trauma, using fast-acting anesthetics as well as multimodal opioid-sparing analgesia regime and liberal prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting are basic cornerstones. The scope being to maintain physiology and minimize the impact on homeostasis and subsequently hasten and improve recovery.

SUMMARY

The increasing adoption of enhanced protocols, including the entire perioperative care bundle, in combination with increased use of minimally invasive surgical techniques have shortened hospital stay. More intermediate procedures are today transferred to ambulatory pathways; SDD or overnight stay only. The traditional scores for assessing discharge eligibility are however still valid. Stable vital signs, awake and oriented, able to ambulate with acceptable pain, and postoperative nausea and vomiting are always needed. Drinking and voiding must be acknowledged but mandatory. Escort and someone at home the first night following surgery are strongly recommended. Explicit information around postoperative care and how to contact healthcare in case of need, as well as a follow-up call day after surgery, are likewise of importance. Mobile apps and remote monitoring are techniques increasingly used to improve postoperative follow-up.

Cost of Total Intravenous Anesthesia Versus Inhalation Anesthesia in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Surgery

OBJECTIVES

To compare cost and time spent in surgical and postoperative courses in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) undergoing surgery with either total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) or inhalational anesthesia.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

METHODS

Retrospective review on patients undergoing surgery for OSA under general anesthesia from January 2019 to October 2020. Cost per service was acquired for the day of surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 230 patients were included: 95 received TIVA; 135 received inhalation anesthesia. Total cost was significantly higher in the TIVA nasal surgery group by $286 (P = .035). TIVA produced significantly higher pharmacy and operating room costs across all surgeries and OSA severities. These increased costs were offset by significantly lower supply costs in upper airway stimulator (UAS, -$419.50; P = .007) and uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP, -$115.16; P = .015) patients receiving TIVA. In the TIVA cohort, there was a trend toward lower recovery room costs after UAS (-$111.09; P = .063) and nasal surgery (-$64.45; P = .096) and anesthesia costs after nasal surgery (-$36.67; P = .054). Total recovery time was reduced by 18 minutes (P = .004) for nasal surgery, 25 minutes (P = .043) for UAS, and 27 minutes (P = .147) for UPPP patients receiving TIVA.

CONCLUSION

When used in an outpatient setting for patients with OSA, TIVA adds to pharmacy and operating room costs, but this is usually offset by lower supply, anesthesia, and recovery room costs. We found decreased recovery times in the TIVA cohort. TIVA has proven benefits in patient outcomes and can be cost-effective in OSA surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 2022.