Suppr超能文献

丙泊酚还是苯二氮䓬类药物用于重症监护病房的短期和长期镇静?基于荟萃分析结果的经济学评估。

Propofol or benzodiazepines for short- and long-term sedation in intensive care units? An economic evaluation based on meta-analytic results.

作者信息

Pradelli Lorenzo, Povero Massimiliano, Bürkle Hartmut, Kampmeier Tim-Gerald, Della-Rocca Giorgio, Feuersenger Astrid, Baron Jean-Francois, Westphal Martin

机构信息

AdRes HE&OR, Torino, Italy.

Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg.

出版信息

Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2017 Nov 9;9:685-698. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S136720. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

PURPOSE

This evaluation compares propofol and benzodiazepine sedation for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICUs) in order to identify the potential economic benefits from different payers' perspectives.

METHODS

The patient-level simulation model incorporated efficacy estimates from a structured meta-analysis and ICU-related costs from Italy, Germany, France, UK, and the USA. Efficacy outcomes were ICU length of stay (LOS), mechanical ventilation duration, and weaning time. We calculated ICU costs from mechanical ventilation duration and ICU LOS based on national average ICU costs with and without mechanical ventilation. Three scenarios were investigated: 1) long-term sedation >24 hours based on results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs); 2) long-term sedation based on RCT plus non-RCT results; and 3) short-term sedation <24 hours based on RCT results. We tested the model's robustness for input uncertainties by deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA).

RESULTS

In the base case, mean savings with propofol versus benzodiazepines in long-term sedation ranged from €406 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 646 to 164) in Italy to 1,632 € (95% CI: 2,362 to 880) in the USA. Inclusion of non-RCT data corroborated these results. Savings in short-term sedation ranged from €148 (95% CI: 291 to 2) in Italy to €502 (95% CI: 936 to 57) in the USA. Parameters related to ICU and mechanical ventilation had a stronger influence in the DSA than drug-related parameters. In PSA, propofol reduced costs and ICU LOS compared to benzodiazepines in 94%-100% of simulations. The largest savings may be possible in the UK and the USA due to higher ICU costs.

CONCLUSION

Current ICU sedation guidelines recommend propofol rather than midazolam for mechanically ventilated patients. This evaluation endorses the recommendation as it may lead to better outcomes and savings for health care systems, especially in countries with higher ICU-related costs.

摘要

目的

本评估比较了丙泊酚和苯二氮䓬类药物用于重症监护病房(ICU)机械通气患者的镇静效果,以便从不同支付方的角度确定潜在的经济效益。

方法

患者层面的模拟模型纳入了结构化荟萃分析的疗效估计值以及来自意大利、德国、法国、英国和美国的ICU相关成本。疗效指标包括ICU住院时间(LOS)、机械通气时间和撤机时间。我们根据有无机械通气情况下的全国平均ICU成本,从机械通气时间和ICU LOS计算出ICU成本。研究了三种情况:1)基于随机对照试验(RCT)结果的长期镇静>24小时;2)基于RCT加非RCT结果的长期镇静;3)基于RCT结果的短期镇静<24小时。我们通过确定性敏感性分析(DSA)和概率敏感性分析(PSA)测试了模型对于输入不确定性的稳健性。

结果

在基础案例中,长期镇静时丙泊酚相对于苯二氮䓬类药物的平均节省费用,在意大利为406欧元(95%置信区间[CI]:646至164),在美国为1632欧元(95% CI:2362至880)。纳入非RCT数据证实了这些结果。短期镇静的节省费用在意大利为148欧元(95% CI:291至2),在美国为502欧元(95% CI:936至57)。在DSA中,与ICU和机械通气相关的参数比与药物相关的参数影响更大。在PSA中,与苯二氮䓬类药物相比,丙泊酚在94%-100%的模拟中降低了成本和ICU LOS。由于ICU成本较高,在英国和美国可能实现最大的节省。

结论

当前的ICU镇静指南推荐对机械通气患者使用丙泊酚而非咪达唑仑。本评估支持这一推荐,因为它可能为医疗保健系统带来更好的结果和节省,特别是在ICU相关成本较高的国家。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验