Aanesthetic Agents for Day Surgery - NIHR Health Technology ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1. Royal College of Surgeons of England. Guidelines for day case surgery. London: Royal College of Surgeons of England; 1992. 2. National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts (NAHAT). Day surgery: report of the day surgery task force. Birmingham: National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts (NAHAT); 1993. 3. Hodge D. Introduction to day surgery. Surg Nurse 1994;7:12–16. 4. Stephenson ME. Discharge criteria in day surgery. J Adv Nurs 1990;15:601–13. 5. Lerman J. Sevoflurane in pediatric anesthesia. Anesth Analg 1995;81:S4–10. 6. Black A, Sury MRJ, Hemington L, Howard R, Mackersie A, Hatch DJ, et al. A comparison of the induction characteristics of sevoflurane and halothane in children. Anaesthesia 1996;51:539–42. 7. Evan EW, Davies MW. Inhalational versus intravenous induction: a survey of emergency anaesthetic practice in the UK. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2000;17:35–7. 8. Carrie LES, Simpson PJ. Understanding anaesthesia. London: Heinemann; 1988. 9. Stevens JB, Walker SC, Fontenot JP. The clinical neuromuscular pharmacology of cisatracurium versus vecuronium during outpatient anesthesia. Anesth Analg 1997;85:1278–83. 10. Joshi GP, Inagaki Y, White PF, Taylor-Kennedy L, Wat LI, Gevirtz C, et al. Use of the laryngeal mask airway as an alternative to the tracheal tube during ambulatory anesthesia. Anesth Analg 1997;85:573–7. 11. Alexander CA, Leach AB. Incidence of sore throats with the laryngeal mask. Anaesthesia 1989;47:791. 12. Gwinnutt C. Day surgery. Practitioner 1991;235:738–42. 13. Sury MRJ, Black A, Hemington L, Howard R, Hatch DJ, Mackersie S. A comparison of the recovery characteristics of sevoflurane and halothane in children. Anaesthesia 1996;51:543–6. 14. Korttila K. Home-readiness after day surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1995;39 Suppl 105:95–6. 15. Medicare Audits Ltd. Survey on postoperative nausea and vomiting. Baltimore: Medicare Audits Ltd; 1992. 16. Paxton D, McKay RC, Mirakhur RK. Prevention of nausea and vomiting after daycase gynaecological laparoscopy. Anaesthesia 1995;50:403–6. © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2002. All rights reserved. References Health Technology Assessment 2002; Vol. 6: No. 30 17. The Welsh Office. Welsh Planning Forum. Cardiff: The Welsh Office; 1992. 18. Meaden S, Whiting H, Stephens P. An audit of postoperative stay-in patients from a day surgical unit. J One-Day Surg 1994;Autumn:11. 19. Leith SE, Hawkshaw D, Jackson IJB. A national survey of the importance and drug treatment of pain and emesis following day surgery. J One-Day Surg 1994;Autumn;24–5. 20. Gold BS, Kitz DS, Lecky JH, Neuhaus JM. Unanticipated admission to the hospital following ambulatory surgery. JAMA 1989;262:3008–10. 21. Hawksworth C. Willingness to pay for better day surgery drugs. J One-Day Surg 1996;6:3–5. 22. Churnside RJ, Glendenning GA. Resource use in general anaesthesia: a comparison of practice in Germany, France and the UK. J Drug Assess 1998;1:403–574. 23. Churnside RJ, Glendenning GA, Thwaites RMA, Watts NWR. Resource use in operative surgery: UK general anaesthesia costs in perspective. Br J Med Econom 1996;10:83–98. 24. Dion P. The cost of anaesthetic vapours. Anaesthesia 1992;39:6:633–4. 25. Broadway PJ, Jones JG. A method of costing anaesthetic practice. Anaesthesia 1995;50:56–63. 26. Heath KJ, Sadler P, Winn JH, McFadzean WA. Nitrous oxide reduces the cost of intravenous anaesthesia. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1996;13:369–72. 27. Cotter SM, Petros AJ, Dore CJ, Barber ND, White DC. Low-flow anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 1991;46:1009–12. 28. Heidvall M, Hein A, Davidson S, Jakobsson J. Cost comparison between three different general anaesthetic techniques for elective arthroscopy of the knee. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2000;44:157–62. 29. Alhashemi JA, Miller DR, O’Brien HV, Hull KA. Cost-effectiveness of inhalational, balanced and total intravenous anaesthesia for ambulatory knee surgery. Can J Anaesth 1997;44:118–25. 30. Martikainen M, Kangas-Saarela T. Cost-effective anaesthesia for outpatient arthroscopic knee surgery: spinal, desflurane, isoflurane or propofol anaesthesia? Ambulat Surg 2000;8:63–6. 31. Myles PS, Bain DL, Johnson F, McMahon R. Is anaesthesia evidence-based? A survey of anaesthetic practice. Br J Anaesth 1999;82:591–5. 95
Page 1 and 2:
Which anaesthetic agents are costef
Page 3:
Which anaesthetic agents are costef
Page 6 and 7:
NHS R&D HTA Programme The NHS R&D H
Page 8 and 9:
Contents Appendix 6 Adult patient-b
Page 11 and 12:
Background The aim of the project w
Page 13:
• The incidence of PONV was low d
Page 16 and 17:
2 Introduction dizziness or disorie
Page 18 and 19:
4 Introduction a reduced incidence
Page 20 and 21:
6 Introduction willingness to pay f
Page 22 and 23:
8 Literature review included in the
Page 24 and 25:
10 Literature review TABLE 1 Compar
Page 26 and 27:
12 Literature review intermediate a
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
18 Literature review Patient-based
Page 34 and 35:
20 Literature review TABLE 5 contd
Page 36 and 37:
22 Literature review No studies fol
Page 38 and 39:
24 Literature review (30%) and meth
Page 40 and 41:
26 Literature review • There are
Page 42 and 43:
28 National survey of anaesthetic p
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
36 Economic evaluation methods (inc
Page 52 and 53:
38 Economic evaluation methods The
Page 54 and 55:
40 Economic evaluation methods Tabl
Page 56 and 57:
42 Economic evaluation methods simi
Page 58 and 59: 44 Economic evaluation methods Prob
Page 61 and 62: Recruitment to the CESA RCT The stu
Page 63 and 64: Clinical outcome data PONV by anaes
Page 65 and 66: The findings from the logistic regr
Page 67 and 68: TABLE 29 The length of stay and pri
Page 69 and 70: 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 No. of pa
Page 71 and 72: 250 200 150 100 50 0 No. of patient
Page 73 and 74: TABLE 37 Deterministic sensitivity
Page 75 and 76: 20 15 10 5 0 -5 Difference in varia
Page 77 and 78: Patient admitted for day surgery an
Page 79 and 80: 500 400 300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -30
Page 81 and 82: Recruitment to the CESA RCT The stu
Page 83 and 84: TABLE 49 The occurrence of any PONV
Page 85 and 86: 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 No. of patients
Page 87 and 88: a scale effect for scenario A, but
Page 89 and 90: The mean CVs for avoidance of PONV
Page 91 and 92: 1.80 The new variable cost and tota
Page 93 and 94: 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Su
Page 95 and 96: The structure and content of this d
Page 97 and 98: nurses to have an in-depth knowledg
Page 99 and 100: agent used (see appendix 18). It wa
Page 101 and 102: Furthermore, anaesthetists operate
Page 103 and 104: The CESA project was designed to as
Page 105: practice, such as the use of midazo
Page 110 and 111: 96 References 32. Simpson RB, Russe
Page 112 and 113: 98 References 87. Korttila K, Nuott
Page 114 and 115: 100 References 138. Ariffin SA, Why
Page 116 and 117: 102 References 191. Otte DI. Patien
Page 118 and 119: 104 References 253. Barber J, Thomp
Page 120 and 121: 106 Appendix 1 25. ambulatory surge
Page 123 and 124: TABLE 65 Summary of adult clinical
Page 125 and 126: Hierarchy of evidence Grade I: prop
Page 127 and 128: © Queen’s Printer and Controller
Page 129 and 130: TABLE 66 contd Summary of adult cli
Page 153 and 154: TABLE 67 Summary of paediatric clin
Page 155 and 156: TABLE 67 contd Summary of paediatri
Page 157 and 158: TABLE 67 contd Summary of paediatri
Page 159 and 160:
TABLE 67 contd Summary of paediatri
Page 161 and 162:
TABLE 68 Summary of adult patient-b
Page 163 and 164:
TABLE 68 contd Summary of adult pat
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171:
Page 174 and 175:
160 Appendix 7 TABLE 69 contd Summa
Page 176 and 177:
162 Appendix 7 TABLE 69 contd Summa
Page 178 and 179:
164 Appendix 8 TABLE 70 contd Chara
Page 180 and 181:
166 Appendix 9 TABLE 71 contd Quali
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
176 Appendix 10 Chilvers CR, Kinaha
Page 192 and 193:
178 Appendix 10 Lowry DW, Carroll M
Page 195 and 196:
© Queen’s Printer and Controller
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203:
Membership Dr John Sear (Chair), Re
Page 206 and 207:
192 Appendix 13 Interviews A pilot
Page 208 and 209:
194 Appendix 13 hypothetical CV res
Page 211:
Page 214 and 215:
200 Appendix 16 theme occurred. Som
Page 216 and 217:
202 Appendix 16 The majority of par
Page 218 and 219:
204 Appendix 16 TABLE 78 Views on t
Page 220 and 221:
206 Appendix 16 “No, I felt rushe
Page 222 and 223:
208 Appendix 16 Five patients gave
Page 224 and 225:
210 Appendix 16 TABLE 82 Reason giv
Page 226 and 227:
212 Appendix 17 • the patient had
Page 228 and 229:
214 Appendix 17 TABLE 87 Unit costs
Page 230 and 231:
216 Appendix 18 concerning the accu
Page 232 and 233:
218 Appendix 18 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2
Page 234 and 235:
220 Appendix 18 TABLE 89 Limits of
Page 237 and 238:
Background Semi-fixed costs account
Page 239:
Page 242 and 243:
228 Appendix 20 TABLE 94 contd Unit
Page 245 and 246:
Quality assurance is defined as “
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249:
288 randomised to propofol/propofol
Page 252 and 253:
238 Appendix 25 Peritoneum T34.9 op
Page 254 and 255:
240 Appendix 25 V41.2 anterior atta
Page 256 and 257:
242 Appendix 26 TABLE 98 Occurrence
Page 258 and 259:
244 Appendix 26 TABLE 104 Occurrenc
Page 261 and 262:
The adverse events observed in the
Page 263:
Page 266 and 267:
252 Appendix 29 TABLE 116 Occurrenc
Page 268 and 269:
Members Chair, Professor Kent Woods
Page 270 and 271:
Members Chair, Professor Bruce Camp
Page 273:
Copies of this report can be obtain
show all

Aanesthetic Agents for Day Surgery - NIHR Health Technology ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?