Skip Navigation


BJA Advance Access originally published online on October 28, 2005
British Journal of Anaesthesia 2006 96(1):111-117; doi:10.1093/bja/aei270
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
96/1/111    most recent
aei270v1
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (11)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bartha, E.
Right arrow Articles by Kalman, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bartha, E.
Right arrow Articles by Kalman, S.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2005. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org


PAIN

Evaluation of costs and effects of epidural analgesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia after major abdominal surgery

E. Bartha1,*, P. Carlsson2 and S. Kalman1

1 Department of Anaesthesiology, Linköping University Hospital. 2 Centre for Medical Technology Assessment, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

* Corresponding author. E-mail: elisabeth.bartha{at}lio.se

Background. The outcome of different treatment strategies for postoperative pain has been an issue of controversy. Apart from efficacy and effectiveness a policy decision should also consider cost-effectiveness. Since economic analyses on postoperative pain treatment are rare we developed a decision model in a pilot cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) comparing epidural analgesia (EDA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) after major abdominal surgery in routine care.

Methods. Using a decision-tree model, treatment with EDA (ropivacaine and morphine) was compared with PCIA (morphine). Effects and costs of treatment were established. The number of pain-free days at rest (pain intensity <30 using visual analogue scale 1–100 mm) was the primary measure of effect. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as the difference in direct costs divided by the difference in effect. A database on 644 patients collected for the purpose of quality control during the period of 1997 to 1999 was the main data source. Sensitivity analysis was used to test uncertain data.

Results. EDA was more effective in terms of pain-free days but more expensive. The additional cost for each pain-free day was 5652 Euros.

Conclusion. It is a judgement of value if the additional cost is reasonable. When the cost of around 55 000 Euros per gained life-year with full health for other interventions is debated, our result indicates poor cost-effectiveness for EDA. Before any conclusion can be drawn concerning policy recommendations the difference in costs has to be related to other outcome measures as length of hospital stay, morbidity and mortality are required.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.