British journal of anaesthesia · 2022
Comparison of the effects of sugammadex versus neostigmine for reversal of neuromuscular block on hospital costs of care.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wachtendorf Luca J, Tartler Tim M, Ahrens Elena, Witt Annika S, Azimaraghi Omid, Fassbender Philipp, Suleiman Aiman, Linhardt Felix C, Blank Michael, Nabel Sarah Y, Chao Jerry Y, Goriacko Pavel, Mirhaji Parsa, Houle Timothy T, Schaefer Maximilian S, Eikermann Matthias
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Sugammadex reversal of neuromuscular block facilitates recovery of neuromuscular function after surgery, but the drug is expensive. We evaluated the effects of sugammadex on hospital costs of care.
METHODS: We analysed 79 474 adult surgical patients who received neuromuscular blocking agents and reversal from two academic healthcare networks between 2016 and 2021 to calculate differences in direct costs. We matched our data with data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-National Inpatient Sample (HCUP-NIS) to calculate differences in total costs in US dollars. Perioperative risk profiles were defined based on ASA physical status and admission status (ambulatory surgery vs hospitalisation).
RESULTS: Based on our registry data analysis, administration of sugammadex vs neostigmine was associated with lower direct costs (-1.3% lower costs; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.5 to -2.2%; P=0.002). In the HCUP-NIS matched cohort, sugammadex use was associated with US$232 lower total costs (95% CI, -US$376 to -US$88; P=0.002). Subgroup analysis revealed that sugammadex was associated with US$1042 lower total costs (95% CI, -US$1198 to -US$884; P<0.001) in patients with lower risk. In contrast, sugammadex was associated with US$620 higher total costs (95% CI, US$377 to US$865; P<0.001) in patients with a higher risk (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status ≥3 and preoperative hospitalisation).
CONCLUSIONS: The effects of using sugammadex on costs of care depend on patient risk, defined based on comorbidities and admission status. We observed lower costs of care in patients with lower risk and higher costs of care in hospitalised surgical patients with severe comorbidities.
METHODS: We analysed 79 474 adult surgical patients who received neuromuscular blocking agents and reversal from two academic healthcare networks between 2016 and 2021 to calculate differences in direct costs. We matched our data with data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-National Inpatient Sample (HCUP-NIS) to calculate differences in total costs in US dollars. Perioperative risk profiles were defined based on ASA physical status and admission status (ambulatory surgery vs hospitalisation).
RESULTS: Based on our registry data analysis, administration of sugammadex vs neostigmine was associated with lower direct costs (-1.3% lower costs; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.5 to -2.2%; P=0.002). In the HCUP-NIS matched cohort, sugammadex use was associated with US$232 lower total costs (95% CI, -US$376 to -US$88; P=0.002). Subgroup analysis revealed that sugammadex was associated with US$1042 lower total costs (95% CI, -US$1198 to -US$884; P<0.001) in patients with lower risk. In contrast, sugammadex was associated with US$620 higher total costs (95% CI, US$377 to US$865; P<0.001) in patients with a higher risk (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status ≥3 and preoperative hospitalisation).
CONCLUSIONS: The effects of using sugammadex on costs of care depend on patient risk, defined based on comorbidities and admission status. We observed lower costs of care in patients with lower risk and higher costs of care in hospitalised surgical patients with severe comorbidities.