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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

114 Appendix 4 TABLE 66 contd Summary of adult clinical outcomes studies Study Investigations and subjects Outcome Results Conclusions and measures grade of evidence Arellano et al., (1) Propofol TIVA, no N 2O (a) Time to (a) (X): (1) 113, (2) 110 min; NS Grade I 2000, 52 Canada (n = 750) street-fit (a) (Y): (1) 167, (2) 167 min; NS Method of Multicentre RCT (2) Propofol TIVA, N 2O (n = 750) (b) PONV randomisation: N 2O: given in group 2 (b) NS difference sealed envelopes Premedication: none Blind Procedures: (X) termination of pregnancy; (Y) laparoscopy Ashworth and (1) Propofol, isoflurane, N 2O (n = 30) (a) Open eyes (a): (1) 5.1, (2) 5.6, (3) 4.4 min; NS Grade I Smith, 1998, 53 UK (2) Propofol TIVA, N 2O (n = 30) (b) Obey (b): (1) 5.9, (2) 6.6, (3) 5.1 min;NS Method of commands randomisation RCT (3) Propofol, desflurane, N 2O (c): (1) 6.5, (2) 7.2, (3) 5.4 min; NS not reported (n = 30) (c) Orientation (d): (1) 45, (2) 31, (3) 33 min; NS Blind N 2O: given (d) Sit unaided (e): (1) 157, (2) 156, (3) 166 min; NS Premedication: none (e) Discharge (f): (1) 93%, (2) 90%, (3) 100%; Procedures: mixed body (f) PONV NS surface surgery (% with no PONV) Age: 18–70 years Bernstein et al., (1) Methohexitone, alfentanil (a) Open eyes (a): (1) 9.3, (2) 8.3, (3) 14.8 min; Grade I 1989, 54 Sweden 7 µg/kg (n = 29); methohexitone p < 0.01 TIVA, no N 2O (b) Orientation Method of RCT (b): (1) 10.9, (2) 9.2, (3) 16.7 min; randomisation (2) Methohexitone, alfentanil (c) PONV p < 0.001 not reported 15 µg/kg (n = 30); ethohexitone TIVA, no N 2O (c): (1) 6.9%, (2) 20%, (3) 16.7%; Not blind NS (3) Thiopentone TIVA, N 2O (n = 30) N 2O: given in group 3 Premedication: none Procedures: D&C Gender: women Age: 16–74 years Biswas and Hatch, (1) Thiopentone, halothane, N 2O (a) Open eyes (a): (1) 8.6, (2) 5.2, (3) 2.0 min; Grade I 1989, 55 Australia (n = 26) p < 0.0005 (b) Obey Method of RCT (2) Thiopentone, enflurane, N 2O command (b): (1) 10.2, (2) 6.4, (3) 4.9 min; randomisation (n = 25) p < 0.0005 not reported (c) Orientation (3) Thiopentone, alfentanil, N 2O (c): (1) 10.4, (2) 7.3, (3) 6.2 min; Not blind (n = 26) (d) Trieger p < 0.004 Dot Test N 2O: given (d): Large variability; no valid conclusions possible Premedication: none Procedures: cystoscopy Gender: not reported Age: 15–85 years continued
TABLE 66 contd Summary of adult clinical outcomes studies © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2002. All rights reserved. Health Technology Assessment 2002; Vol. 6: No. 30 Study Investigations and subjects Outcome Results Conclusions and measures grade of evidence Cade et al, (1) Propofol TIVA, N 2O (n = 35) (a) Respond (a) Shorter; p < 0.02 Grade I 1991, 56 Australia to voice (2) Methohexitone TIVA, N 2O (b) No difference Method of randomisation RCT (n = 35) (b) Awaken not reported (c) No difference N 2O: given (c) Orientation Raw data not given, only (d) No difference results of analysis Premedication: none (d) Discharge (e) Shorter; p < 0.05 Analgesia: fentanyl 1 µg/kg (e) Ambulation (f) Group1 less than group 2; Procedures: gynaecological (f) PONV p < 0.04 procedures < 30 min long Gender: women Age: < 30 years Carroll et al., (1) Alfentanil, propofol LMA, (a) Open eyes (a): (1) 6.7, (2) 8.7 min; NS Grade I 1997, 57 UK desflurane, N 2O (n = 20) (b) Obey (b): (1) 7.3, (2) 9.7 min; NS Method of randomisation RCT (2) Alfentanil, propofol LMA, commands not reported propofol TIVA, N 2O (n = 20) (c): (1) 10.8 min; NS (c) Date of birth Not blind N 2O: given (d): NS (d) Simple Premedication: none reaction time (e): NS Procedures: not reported (e) Peg board (f): NS Gender: 30% women (f) Word (g): NS retention Age: > 50 years (h): (1) 92.7, (2) 111.9 min; NS (g) PONV (h) Street-fit Carter et al., (1) Halothane (n = 20) (a) Time to (a): (1) 5.5, (2) 5.1, (3) 6.2 min; Grade I 1985, 58 UK open eyes NS (2) Enflurane (n = 20) Method of randomisation (b) Time to (b): (1) 6.4, (2) 5.8, (3) 7.4 min; not reported RCT (3) Isoflurane (n = 20) give date p < 0.05 for groups (b) and (c) of birth Blind N 2O: given (c): (1) 34.2, (2) 33.8, (3) 40.2; NS (c) Post-box Premedication: none test (d): Errors preanaesthesia (1) 7.8, (2) 5.4, (3) 4.9; errors Procedures; D&C (d) P-deletion postanaesthesia (1) 6.9, (2) 9.0, test (3) 6.8; p < 0.05 group (b) Gender: women (d): Lines completed Age: 20–50 years preanaesthesia (1) 25.2, (2) 26.4, (3) 23.5; lines completed postanaesthesia (1) 24.5, (2) 26.4, (3) 26.3; p < 0.05 group (c) continued 115
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 109 and 110: 1. Royal College of Surgeons of Eng
Page 111 and 112: 60. Cheng KI, Chu KS, Fang YR, Su K
Page 113 and 114: 112. Raeder J, Gupta A, Pedersen FM
Page 115 and 116: 162. Viitanen H, Baer G, Annila P.
Page 117 and 118: 220. Rosenberg KM, Bridge P, Brown
Page 119 and 120: The range of databases interrogated
Page 121: 24. preferen$.mp. [mp=title, abstra
Page 124 and 125: 110 Appendix 2 TABLE 65 contd Summa
Page 126 and 127: 112 Appendix 3 Quality assessment o
Page 173 and 174: TABLE 69 Summary of paediatric pati
Page 175 and 176: TABLE 69 contd Summary of paediatri
Page 177 and 178: TABLE 70 Characteristics of cost or
Page 179 and 180:
TABLE 71 Quality of cost or economi
Page 181 and 182:
TABLE 71 contd Quality of cost or e
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Abbott J, Abbott P. Psychological a
Page 191 and 192:
Hall JE, Stewart JIM, Harmer M. Sin
Page 193:
Struys M, Versichelen L, Thas O, He
Page 196 and 197:
182 Appendix 11
Page 198 and 199:
184 Appendix 11
Page 200 and 201:
186 Appendix 11
Page 202 and 203:
188 Appendix 11
Page 205 and 206:
The aim of this study was to develo
Page 207 and 208:
anaesthetics in day surgery, using
Page 209:
© Queen’s Printer and Controller
Page 213 and 214:
Background The empirical study quan
Page 215 and 216:
Satisfaction with care Nearly all (
Page 217 and 218:
TABLE 76 Reason given for preferenc
Page 219 and 220:
TABLE 79 Comparisons with previous
Page 221 and 222:
TABLE 80 Reason given for preferenc
Page 223 and 224:
TABLE 81 Reason given for willingne
Page 225 and 226:
Background Variable costs account f
Page 227 and 228:
TABLE 85 Unit costs for the purchas
Page 229 and 230:
Background The empirical study requ
Page 231 and 232:
Ethical approval This was covered b
Page 233 and 234:
20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 True weight
Page 235:
15 10 5 0 -5 -10 True weight - Dion
Page 238 and 239:
224 Appendix 19 • patients aged o
Page 241 and 242:
All staff unit costs were for the y
Page 243:
Background Fixed costs account for
Page 246 and 247:
232 Appendix 22 March, Tuesday 15 A
Page 248 and 249:
234 Appendix 23 TABLE 96 Reasons fo
Page 251 and 252:
Patients were coded using the OPCS
Page 253 and 254:
Q03.4 punch biopsy of cervix Q03.5
Page 255 and 256:
This section displays the associati
Page 257 and 258:
given in Table 103 confirm the age
Page 259:
TABLE 107 Occurrence of PONV by dur
Page 262 and 263:
248 Appendix 27 TABLE 113 Frequency
Page 265 and 266:
This section displays the associati
Page 267 and 268:
The adverse events observed in the
Page 269 and 270:
262 Health Technology Assessment Pr
Page 271:
264 Health Technology Assessment Pr
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?