[Cost aspects in anesthesia. Propofol versus isoflurane anesthesia].

UNLABELLED

Cost control is no longer an option, but a necessity. Propofol anaesthesia is expensive, however, the true differences in comparison to volatile anaesthetics (isoflurane) are not known.

METHODS

Sixty patients undergoing either thyroidectomy (n = 30) or laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 30) were randomly divided into 3 groups of 20 patients. In group I propofol and fentanyl were used for anaesthesia, in group II isoflurane ('standard' isoflurane anaesthesia), and in group III isoflurane using a low-flow system (fresh gas flow 2 l/min) was given. All patients were ventilated using 70% N2O in oxygen. Vecuronium was used in all cases for muscle relaxation. Isoflurane consumption was measured by weighing the isoflurane vaporizer.

RESULTS

Biometric data and time of administration of the anaesthetic were similar in the three groups. Propofol patients stayed significantly shorter than isoflurane patients in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU). Costs of additional drugs (antiemetics, analgesics) in the PACU were least in the propofol patients. Costs were without differences between the propofol (78.30 DM/patient) and 'standard' isoflurane groups (81.69 DM/patient). Patients in group III showed the lowest overall costs (57.46 DM/patient) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

A climate of cost-consciousness and cost-containment prevails at the present time. The costs of propofol and 'standard' isoflurane anaesthesia were without differences; however, isoflurane used in a low-flow system had the lowest cost in this study. Doubts are justified, however, as to whether the choice of anaesthetic agents may considerably lower the costs of an anaesthesia department.