Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30055562›Full record

Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2018

Cost-effectiveness of anesthesia maintained with sevoflurane or propofol with and without additional monitoring: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.

Timea Bocskai, Csaba Loibl, Zoltan Vamos, Gabor Woth, Tihamer Molnar, Lajos Bogar, Laszlo Lujber

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02920749 (Recovery Profiles and Costs in Sevoflurane and Propofol Based Anaesthesia), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02920749 nacompletednot on this map

Recovery Profiles and Costs in Sevoflurane and Propofol Based Anaesthesia

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PecsRan2014 to 2016Enrolled120ConditionsAnaesthesiaArmsSevoflurane group A, Sevoflurane group B, Propofol group C, Propofol group D
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Timea BocskaiDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, University of Pécs, Medical School, Ifjúság Str 13, Pécs, 7624, Hungary. timokeri@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0112-2256
Csaba LoiblDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, University of Pécs, Medical School, Ifjúság Str 13, Pécs, 7624, Hungary.
Zoltan VamosDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, University of Pécs, Medical School, Ifjúság Str 13, Pécs, 7624, Hungary.
Gabor WothDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, University of Pécs, Medical School, Ifjúság Str 13, Pécs, 7624, Hungary.
Tihamer MolnarDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, University of Pécs, Medical School, Ifjúság Str 13, Pécs, 7624, Hungary.
Lajos BogarDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, University of Pécs, Medical School, Ifjúság Str 13, Pécs, 7624, Hungary.
Laszlo LujberDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Pécs, Medical School, Pécs, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe compared cost-effectiveness of anesthesia maintained with sevoflurane or propofol with and without additional monitoring, in the clinical setting of ear-nose-throat surgery.

methodsOne hundred twenty adult patients were randomized to four groups. In groups SEVO and SEVO+ anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane, in group SEVO+ with additional bispectral index (BIS) and train-of-four (TOF) monitoring. In groups PROP and PROP+ anesthesia was maintained with propofol, in group PROP+ with additional BIS and TOF monitoring.

resultsTotal cost of anesthesia per hour was greater in group SEVO+ compared to SEVO [€ 19.95(8.53) vs. 12.15(5.32), p <  0.001], and in group PROP+ compared to PROP (€ 22.11(8.08) vs. 13.23(4.23), p <  0.001]. Time to extubation was shorter in group SEVO+ compared to SEVO [11.1(4.7) vs. 14.5(3.9) min, p = 0.002], and in PROP+ compared to PROP [12.6(5.4) vs. 15.2(4.7) min, p <  0.001]. Postoperatively, arterial blood pressure returned to its initial values sooner in groups SEVO+ and PROP+.

conclusionsOur study demonstrated that the use of BIS and TOF monitoring decreased the total cost of anesthesia drugs and hastened postoperative recovery. However, in our circumstances, these were associated with higher disposables costs. Detailed cost analysis and further investigations are needed to identify patient populations who would benefit most from additional monitoring.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02920749 . Retrospectively registered (date of registration September 2016).

Indexed as

AdultAnesthetics, InhalationAnesthetics, IntravenousConsciousness MonitorsCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeuromuscular MonitoringOtorhinolaryngologic DiseasesPropofolSevofluraneTime FactorsYoung AdultAnesthetics, InhalationAnesthetics, IntravenousPropofolSevofluraneAnesthesiaBispectral indexCostPatient safetyTrain-of-four

Identifiers

PMID30055562
PMCPMC6064626

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.