Journal of anesthesia · 2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of sedation regimens for children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging in Japan: a simulation-based study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Obara Soichiro, Nakata Yoshinori
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This simulation-based cost-effectiveness analysis evaluates various sedation regimens for pediatric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in Japan.
METHODS: A decision tree model was developed for children aged 3 years with ASA-PS class I/II to compare four sedation regimens: oral triclofos sodium, IV midazolam, IV dexmedetomidine, and IV propofol. The primary outcome was averted sedation failure (aSF). Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, including Monte Carlo simulations and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs), were performed. A 0% discount rate was applied. Our systematic literature search determined success rates for each sedation or general anesthesia regimen.
RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness plane demonstrated the efficiency frontier connecting triclofos sodium, propofol, and general anesthesia. Compared to oral triclofos sodium, propofol had an ICER of $3214.06 per additional aSF, which was more favorable than dexmedetomidine (ICER: -$9222.85). Sensitivity analysis showed that ICER values were most sensitive to the success rates of each sedation regimen, followed by the reimbursement rate for anesthesiologist-administered sedation. CEACs confirmed that triclofos sodium and propofol were the most favorable, while midazolam and general anesthesia were less favorable. The probability of cost-effectiveness for propofol varied from 0 to 51.6%, and for triclofos sodium, it ranged from 100 to 38.9%.
CONCLUSION: Propofol sedation administered by anesthesiologists demonstrated superior cost-effectiveness compared to dexmedetomidine and midazolam sedation administered by non-anesthesiologists, primarily due to higher success rate and lower reimbursement rate for sedation procedures by anesthesiologists. Increasing reimbursement for anesthesiologist-administered sedation may be justifiable, though further real-world validation is needed.
METHODS: A decision tree model was developed for children aged 3 years with ASA-PS class I/II to compare four sedation regimens: oral triclofos sodium, IV midazolam, IV dexmedetomidine, and IV propofol. The primary outcome was averted sedation failure (aSF). Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, including Monte Carlo simulations and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs), were performed. A 0% discount rate was applied. Our systematic literature search determined success rates for each sedation or general anesthesia regimen.
RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness plane demonstrated the efficiency frontier connecting triclofos sodium, propofol, and general anesthesia. Compared to oral triclofos sodium, propofol had an ICER of $3214.06 per additional aSF, which was more favorable than dexmedetomidine (ICER: -$9222.85). Sensitivity analysis showed that ICER values were most sensitive to the success rates of each sedation regimen, followed by the reimbursement rate for anesthesiologist-administered sedation. CEACs confirmed that triclofos sodium and propofol were the most favorable, while midazolam and general anesthesia were less favorable. The probability of cost-effectiveness for propofol varied from 0 to 51.6%, and for triclofos sodium, it ranged from 100 to 38.9%.
CONCLUSION: Propofol sedation administered by anesthesiologists demonstrated superior cost-effectiveness compared to dexmedetomidine and midazolam sedation administered by non-anesthesiologists, primarily due to higher success rate and lower reimbursement rate for sedation procedures by anesthesiologists. Increasing reimbursement for anesthesiologist-administered sedation may be justifiable, though further real-world validation is needed.