Catalogo Articoli (Spogli Riviste)

OPAC HELP

Titolo:
Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic dolasetron or droperidol vs rescue therapy in the prevention of PONV in ambulatory gynecologic surgery
Autore:
Frighetto, L; Loewen, PS; Dolman, J; Marra, CA;
Indirizzi:
Univlinitish Columbia, Vancouver Hosp & Hlth Sci Ctr, Fac Pharmaceut Sci, C Univ British Columbia Vancouver BC Canada V5Z 1M9 , Fac Pharmaceut Sci, C UnivMed,tish Columbia, Vancouver Hosp & Hlth Sci Ctr, Dept Anesthesia, FacUniv British Columbia Vancouver BC Canada V5Z 1M9 r, Dept Anesthesia, Fac
Titolo Testata:
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA-JOURNAL CANADIEN D ANESTHESIE
fascicolo: 6, volume: 46, anno: 1999,
pagine: 536 - 543
SICI:
0832-610X(199906)46:6<536:COPDOD>2.0.ZU;2-D
Fonte:
ISI
Lingua:
ENG
Soggetto:
POSTOPERATIVE NAUSEA; INTRAVENOUS DOLASETRON; UNANTICIPATED ADMISSION; ANTIEMETIC THERAPY; ONDANSETRON; METOCLOPRAMIDE; LAPAROSCOPY; PLACEBO; COMBINATION; ANESTHESIA;
Tipo documento:
Article
Natura:
Periodico
Settore Disciplinare:
Clinical Medicine
Life Sciences
Citazioni:
39
Recensione:
Indirizzi per estratti:
Indirizzo: Marra, CA Univlinitish1M9,umbia, Vancouver Hosp & Hlth Sci Ctr, Fac Pharmaceut Sci, C Univ British Columbia 855 W 12th Ave Vancouver BC Canada V5Z 1M9
Citazione:
L. Frighetto et al., "Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic dolasetron or droperidol vs rescue therapy in the prevention of PONV in ambulatory gynecologic surgery", CAN J ANAES, 46(6), 1999, pp. 536-543

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic therapy (1.25 mgdroperidol or 50 mg dolasetron iv) vs no prophylaxis (rescue therapy) for the prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) from a Canadianhospital perspective,Methods: Design: A predictive decision analytic model using previously published clinical and economic evaluations, and costs of medical care in Canada. Subjects: Ambulatory gynecology surgery patients, interventions: Three strategies administered prior to emergence from anesthesia were compared: 1.25 mg droperidol iv, 50 mg dolasetron iv; and no prophylaxis (res; cue therapy). Results: The base case mean cost per patient receiving dolasetron prophylaxis was $28.08 CAN compared with $26.88 CAN per patient receiving droperidol prophylaxis, resulting in a marginal cost of $1.20 CAN. This difference translated in an additional cost of $12.00 CAN for the dolasetron strategy pr adverse event avoided over the droperidol strategy. The base case mean cost per patient not receiving prophylaxis was $26.92 resulting in marginal costs of $1.16 CAN and $0.04 CAN when compared to dolasetron and droperidol,respectively. Compared with the no prophylaxis strategy, dolasetron prophylaxis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5.82 CAN per additional PONV-free patient. The mean costs incurred per PONV-free patientwere calculated to be $48.41 for the dolasetron strategy $46.34 for the droperidol strategy and $70.83 for the no prophylaxis strategy. Conclusions: Dolasetron and droperidol given intraoperatively were more cost-effective than no prophylaxis for PONV in patients undergoing ambulatorygynecologic surgery. The difference between the two agents was small and favoured droperidol, The model was robust to plausible changes through sensitivity analyses.

ASDD Area Sistemi Dipartimentali e Documentali, Università di Bologna, Catalogo delle riviste ed altri periodici
Documento generato il 01/10/20 alle ore 00:40:12