Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing epidural, patient-controlled intravenous morphine, and continuous wound infiltration for postoperative pain management after open abdominal surgery.

BACKGROUND

Continuous wound infiltration (CWI), i.v. patient-controlled analgesia (i.v.-PCA), and epidural analgesia (EDA) are analgesic techniques commonly used for pain relief after open abdominal surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these techniques.

METHODS

A decision analytic model was developed, including values retrieved from clinical trials and from an observational prospective cohort of 85 patients. Efficacy criteria were based on pain at rest (VAS ≤ 30/100 mm at 24 h). Resource use and costs were evaluated from medical record measurements and published data. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed.

RESULTS

When taking into account all resources consumed, the CWI arm (€ 6460) is economically dominant when compared with i.v.-PCA (€ 7273) and EDA (€ 7500). The proportion of patients successfully controlled for their postoperative pain management are 77.4%, 53.9%, and 72.9% for CWI, i.v.-PCA, and EDA, respectively, demonstrating the CWI procedure to be both economically and clinically dominant. PSA reported that CWI remains cost saving in 70.4% of cases in comparison with EDA and in 59.2% of cases when compared with PCA.

CONCLUSIONS

Device-related costs of using CWI for pain management after abdominal laparotomy are partly counterbalanced by a reduction in resource consumption. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that CWI is the dominant treatment strategy for managing postoperative pain (i.e. more effective and less costly) in comparison with i.v.-PCA. When compared with EDA, CWI is less costly with almost equivalent efficacy. This economic evaluation may be useful for clinicians to design algorithms for pain management after major abdominal surgery.