liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Evaluation of costs and effects of epidural analgesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia after major abdominal surgery
Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Medicine and Care, Anaesthesiology.
Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Department of Health and Society, Center for Medical Technology Assessment.
Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Medicine and Care, Anaesthesiology. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Anaesthesiology and Surgical Centre, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care VHN.
2006 (English)In: British Journal of Anaesthesia, ISSN 0007-0912, E-ISSN 1471-6771, Vol. 96, no 1, 111-117 p.Article in journal (Refereed) 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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2006. Vol. 96, no 1, 111-117 p.
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-33856DOI: 10.1093/bja/aei270Local ID: 19929OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-33856DiVA: diva2:254679
Available from: 2009-10-09 Created: 2009-10-09 Last updated: 2017-12-13

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Carlsson, PerKalman, Sigga

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Carlsson, PerKalman, Sigga
By organisation
Faculty of Health SciencesAnaesthesiologyCenter for Medical Technology AssessmentDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care VHN
In the same journal
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 248 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf