liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Endre søk
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Evaluation of costs and effects of epidural analgesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia after major abdominal surgery
Linköpings universitet, Hälsouniversitetet. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för medicin och vård, Anestesiologi.
Linköpings universitet, Hälsouniversitetet. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för hälsa och samhälle, Centrum för utvärdering av medicinsk teknologi.
Linköpings universitet, Hälsouniversitetet. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för medicin och vård, Anestesiologi. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Anestesi- och operationscentrum, Anestesi- och intensivvårdskliniken VIN.
2006 (engelsk)Inngår i: British Journal of Anaesthesia, ISSN 0007-0912, E-ISSN 1471-6771, Vol. 96, nr 1, s. 111-117Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) Published
Abstract [en]

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. © The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2005. All rights reserved.

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
2006. Vol. 96, nr 1, s. 111-117
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-33856DOI: 10.1093/bja/aei270Lokal ID: 19929OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-33856DiVA, id: diva2:254679
Tilgjengelig fra: 2009-10-09 Laget: 2009-10-09 Sist oppdatert: 2017-12-13

Open Access i DiVA

Fulltekst mangler i DiVA

Andre lenker

Forlagets fulltekst

Personposter BETA

Carlsson, PerKalman, Sigga

Søk i DiVA

Av forfatter/redaktør
Carlsson, PerKalman, Sigga
Av organisasjonen
I samme tidsskrift
British Journal of Anaesthesia

Søk utenfor DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric

doi
urn-nbn
Totalt: 377 treff
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf