Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Propofol

A Pharmacoeconomic Appraisal of its Use in Day Case Surgery

  • Pharmacoeconomic Drug Evaluation
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Propofol is an intravenous anaesthetic agent that has become widely used in day case surgery. It induces anaesthesia rapidly and ‘smoothly’, is associated with a quick recovery and has a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) than other agents. In studies comparing propofol with other intravenous anaesthetics (most commonly thiopental sodium) in day case surgery, the use of propofol as induction and/or maintenance anaesthesia was associated with a shorter time to intermediate recovery (street fitness or time to discharge), although the mean time difference was generally less than 1 hour. However, when compared with volatile anaesthetics (particularly desflurane), the differences in time to discharge were smaller. Propofol is also associated with less PONV than barbiturates, volatile anaesthetics or barbiturate/volatile anaesthetic combinations in the immediate postoperative period. The faster recovery time and the decreased incidence of PONV have potential pharmacoeconomic implications. Delayed recovery can increase the use of hospital resources and decrease patient throughput and PONV can incur costs due to an increase in adjunctive medications usage (e.g. antiemetics), nursing time or unintended admissions. The pharmacoeconomic significance of these properties of propofol requires formal evaluation.

Pharmacoeconomic investigations, such as cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit and cost-minimisation studies, which include clinical outcome parameters are difficult to conduct in anaesthesia since there are no objective measures of equipotency between anaesthetic agents and because there is no specific health outcome associated with the delivery of anaesthesia. At present, cost-utility studies are not possible because there are no validated instruments for measuring utility in the provision of anaesthesia. To date, pharmacoeconomic analyses of propofol (and other anaesthetic agents) in day case surgery have been restricted to partial cost analyses. Only 2 of these have included the cost of drug wastage, an important consideration since propofol contains no preservative. With 1 exception, these studies have only included drug acquisition costs and propofol was reported to be approximately 1- to 3-fold as costly as other intravenous/inhalational agents. However, these limited analyses have little applicability since they do not include all relevant costs. In addition to drug acquisition costs, pharmacoeconomic studies should also include other direct costs such as the cost of adjunctive medications (including treatment necessary for adverse events), equipment and staff time, indirect costs such as loss of productivity and/or wages and intangible costs such as patient satisfaction and quality of life. A few studies have attempted to quantify some of these factors. Based on differences in recovery time, 2 studies have estimated a decreased demand for nursing staff time associated with the use of propofol compared with thiopental sodium/isoflurane. In addition, informal patient satisfaction assessments show propofol to be equal to or better than other anaesthetic agents.

With these broader considerations, it thus remains for future studies to quantify the intangible and indirect costs associated with propofol anaesthesia, to determine whether differences in recovery between propofol and other agents (especially the newer inhalational anaesthetics) are of economic importance, and to identify those instances where propofol use provides the greatest value for available funds.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bryson HM, Fulton B, Faulds D. Propofol: an update of its clinical efficacy as an intravenous anaesthetic and sedative agent. Drugs 1995; 50(3): 513–59

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Stephens FO. Day stay, ambulatory or outpatient surgery. Med J Aust 1994 Feb 7; 160: 99–100

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Berryman JM. Development and organization of outpatient surgery units: the hospital’s perspective. Urol Clin North Am 1987 Feb; 14(1): 1–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Audit Commission. A short cut to better services: day surgery in England and Wales. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  5. Morgan M, Beech R. Variations in lengths of stay and rates of day case surgery: implications for the efficiency of surgical management. J Epidemiol Community Health 1990; 44: 90–105

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kitz DS, Slusarz-Ladden C, Lecky JH. Hospital resources used for inpatient and ambulatory surgery. Anesthesiology 1988 Sep; 69(3): 383–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Laffaye HA. The impact of an ambulatory surgical service in a community hospital. Arch Surg 1989 May; 124: 601–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lakhani S, Leach RD, Jarrett PEM. Effect of a surgical day unit on waiting lists. J R Soc Med 1987 Oct; 80: 628–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Stott NCH. Day case surgery generates no increased workload for community based staff: true or false? BMJ 1992 Mar 28; 304: 304–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Burn JMB. Costs of day case surgery [letter]. BMJ 1992 Apr 25; 304: 1118

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ogg TW. Use of anaesthesia: implications of day-case surgery and anaesthesia. BMJ 1980 Jul 19; 2: 212–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ding Y, Fredman B, White PF. Recovery following outpatient anesthesia: use of enflurane versus propofol. J Clin Anesth 1993 Nov/Dec; 5: 447–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Chittleborough MC, Osborne GA, Rudkin GE, et al. Doubleblind comparison of patient recovery after induction with propofol or thiopentone for day-case relaxant general anaesthesia. Anaesth Intensive Care 1992 May; 20(2): 169–73

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rashiq S, Gallant B, Grace M, et al. Recovery characteristics following induction of anaesthesia with a combination of thiopentone and propofol. Can J Anaesth 1994; 41(12): 1166–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Runcie CJ, Mackenzie SJ, Arthur DS, et al. Comparison of recovery from anaesthesia induced in children with either propofol or thiopentone. Br J Anaesth 1993; 70: 192–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Smith I, Ding Y, White PF. Comparison of induction, maintenance, and recovery characteristics of sevoflurane-N2O and propofol-sevoflurane-N2O with propofol-isoflurane-N2O anesthesia. Anesth Analg 1992; 74: 253–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Doze VA, Shafer A, White PF. Propofol-nitrous oxide versus thiopental-isoflurane-nitrous oxide for anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1988 Jul; 69(1): 63–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lim BL, Low TC. Total intravenous anaesthesia versus inhalational anaesthesia for dental day surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care 1992 Nov; 20: 475–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Korttila K, Ostman P, Faure E, et al. Randomized comparison of recovery after propofol-nitrous oxide versus thiopentoneisoflurane-nitrous oxide anaesthesia in patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1990 Jul; 34: 400–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sung YF, Reiss N, Tillette T. The differential cost of anesthesia and recovery with propofol-nitrous oxide anesthesia versus thiopental sodium-isoflurane-nitrous oxide anesthesia. J Clin Anesth 1991 Sep–Oct; 3: 391–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Cork RC, Scipione P. Appendix: patient perceptions of propofol versus thiopental-isoflurane outpatient anesthesia. Semin Anesth 1992 Mar; 11 Suppl. 1: 50–4

    Google Scholar 

  22. Millar JM, Jewkes CF. Recovery and morbidity after day case anaesthesia. A comparison of propofol with thiopentone-enflurane with and without alfentanil. Anaesthesia 1988; 43: 738–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hannallah RS, Britton JT, Schafer PG, et al. Propofol anaesthesia in paediatric ambulatory patients: a comparison with thiopentone and halothane. Can J Anaesth 1994; 41(1): 12–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Puttick N, Rosen M. Propofol induction and maintenance with nitrous oxide in paediatric outpatient dental anaesthesia. A comparison with thiopentone-nitrous oxide-halothane. Anaesthesia 1988; 43: 646–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Randel GI, Levy L, Kothary SP, et al. Propofol versus thiamylalenflurane anesthesia for outpatient laparoscopy. J Clin Anesth 1992 May/Jun; 4: 185–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Siler JN, Fisher SM, Boon P. A comparative study of propofol using the total intravenous anesthesia technique versus a standard anesthetic technique for outpatient surgical procedures. Semin Anesth 1990; 11 Suppl. 1: 14–5

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kallela H, Haasio J, Korttila K. Comparison of eltanolone and propofol in anesthesia for termination of pregnancy. Anesth Analg 1994; 79: 512–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Harries A, Bagley G, Lim M, et al. Anaesthesia for extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. A comparison of propofol and methohexitone infusions during high frequency jet ventilation. Anaesthesia 1988; 43 Suppl.: 100–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Best N, Traugott F. Comparative evaluation of propofol or methohexitone as the sole anaesthetic agent for microlaryngeal surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care 1991 Feb; 19(1): 50–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Graham SG, Aitkenhead AR. A comparison between propofol and desflurane anaesthesia for minor gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Anaesthesia 1993 Jun; 48: 471–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Van Hemelrijck J, Smith I, White PF. Use of desflurane for outpatient anesthesia: a comparison with propofol and nitrous oxide. Anesthesiology 1991 Aug; 75(2): 197–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Thiron AV, Clergue F, Seebacher J, et al. Desflurane with or without N2O vs propofol for outpatient laparoscopy [abstract]. Anesthesiology 1991 Sep; 75(3A): A18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rapp SE, Conahan TJ, Pavlin DJ, et al. Comparison of desflurane with propofol in outpatients undergoing peripheral orthopedic surgery. Anesth Analg 1992; 75: 572–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Lebenbom-Mansour MH, Pandit SK, Kothary SP, et al. Desflurane versus propofol anesthesia: a comparative analysis in outpatients. Anesth Analg 1993; 76: 936–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Valanne J. Recovery and discharge of patients after long propofol infusion vs isoflurane anaesthesia for ambulatory surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1992 Aug; 36: 530–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Green G, Jonsson L. Nausea: the most important factor determining length of stay after ambulatory anaesthesia: a comparative study of isoflurane and/or propofol techniques. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1993; 37: 742–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Moore WJ, Underwood S. Propofol as sole agent for paediatric day-case dental surgery: a randomised study comparing an intravenous propofol infusion with 100% inspired oxygen versus a nitrous oxide/oxygen/halothane maintenance technique. Anaesthesia 1994; 49: 811–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Dexter F, Tinker JH. Comparisons between desflurane and isoflurane or propofol on time to following commands and time to discharge: a metaanalysis. Anesthesiology 1995 Jul; 83(1): 77–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Borgeat A, Wilder-Smith OHG, Saiah M, et al. Subhypnotic doses of propofol possess direct antiemetic properties. Anesth Analg 1992 Apr; 74: 539–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Janny S, Dejonckheere M, Wyns C, et al. Antiemetic effects of propofol after thyroidectomy: comparison with a placebo [abstract]. Br J Anaesth 1995; 74 Suppl. 1: 85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Cade L, Morley PT, Ross AW. Is propofol cost-effective for day-surgery patients? Anaesth Intensive Care 1991 May; 19: 201–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Raftery S, Sherry E. Total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol and alfentanil protects against postoperative nausea and vomiting. Can J Anaesth 1992; 39(1): 37–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Reimer EJ, Montgomery CJ, Bevan JC, et al. Propofol anaesthesia reduces early postoperative emesis after paediatric strabismus surgery. Can J Anaesth 1993; 40(10): 927–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Werner ME, Bach DE, Newhouse RF. A comparison of propofol with methohexital and isoflurane in two general anesthetic techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1993 Oct; 51(10): 1076–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Jobalia N, Mathieu A. A meta-analysis of published studies confirms decreased postoperative nausea/vomiting with propofol [abstract]. Anesthesiology 1994 Sep; 81(3A): A34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Rhodes SP, Ridley S. Economic aspects of general anaesthesia. PharmacoEconomics 1993 Feb; 3: 124–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Kantor GS. The cost of desflurane and propofol anesthesia [letter]. Anesth Analg 1993 May; 76: 1172

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Rosenberg MK, Bridge P, Brown M. Cost comparison: a desflurane-versus a propofol-based general anesthetic technique. Anesth Analg 1994 Nov; 79: 852–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Bolt ML, Branche JD, Go PMNY. Total intravenous or balanced inhalation anaesthesia for day surgery: (comparison of cost and recovery nausea). J One-Day Surg 1992 Jun/Jul: 19–20

  50. Philip BK, Mushlin PS, Manzi D, et al. Isoflurane versus propofol for maintenance of anesthesia for ambulatory surgery: a comparison of costs and recovery profiles [abstract]. Anesthesiology 1992 Sep; 77 Suppl.: A44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Young PC, Tighe SQM, Hall GA. Cost of anaesthesia for minor surgery [letter]. Anaesthesia 1993 Sep; 48: 820

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Weiskopf RB, Eger II El. Comparing the costs of inhaled anesthetics. Anesthesiology 1993 Dec; 79(6): 1413–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Zeneca Inc. Propofol prescribing information. Wilmington, DE, USA, 1995

  54. Giles M, Jeffries E, Mitchell M. An audit of wastage of propofol in the theatres of an NHS Trust [abstract no. 20]. In: Progress in practice. United Kingdom Clinical Pharmacy Association residential symposium; 1994: 71–73

  55. Hitchcock M, Rudkin G. The real cost of total intravenous anaesthesia: cost versus price. Ambulatory Surgery 1995; 3(1): 43–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Astley BA, Seckler Walker J. Cost of anaesthesia. BMJ 1982 Jul 17; 285: 189–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Hudson RJ, Friesen RM. Health care ‘reform’ and the costs of anaesthesia. Can J Anaesth 1993; 40(12): 1120–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Rowe L, Kasnoswki. Anaesthetic costs in day surgery. J One-Day Surg 1994/95 Winter: 7–8

  59. Suver J, Arikian SR, Doyle JJ, et al. Use of anesthesia selection in controlling surgery costs in an HMO hospital. Clin Ther 1995; 17(3): 561–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Nathan N, Rezzoug A, Dolan P, et al. Infusion of propofol or closed-circuit isoflurane: a study of cost [in French]. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim 1993; 12: 571–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Aldrete JA, Kroulik D. A postanesthetic recovery score. Anesth Analg 1970; 49: 924–33

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Marais ML, Maher MW, Wetchler BV, et al. Reduced demands on recovery room resources with propofol (Diprivan) compared to thiopental-isoflurane. Anesthesiol Rev 1989 Jan/Feb; 16(1): 29–40

    Google Scholar 

  63. Dexter F, Tinker JH. Analysis of strategies to decrease post-anesthesia care unit costs. Anesthesiology 1995 Jan; 82(1): 94–101

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Cooper CG, Maxwell V. Anaesthetic drug costs are not increased by propofol [letter]. Can J Anaesth 1992 Nov; 39: 1000

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Hawkes C, Miller D, Martineau R, et al. Evaluation of cost minimization strategies of anaesthetic drugs in a tertiary care hospital. Can J Anaesth 1994; 41(10): 894–901

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Rajasingham M, Moote CA, Fowler PJ, et al. Propofol vs thiopentone and isoflurane anaesthesia for cruciate ligament surgery [abstract]. Anesthesiology 1992 Sep; 77 Suppl.: A28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Korttila K. Recovery from propofol: does it really make a difference? J Clin Anesth 1993 Nov/Dec; 5: 443–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Eger II EI. New inhaled anesthetics. Anesthesiology 1994 Apr; 80(4): 906–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Mallon JS, Edelist G. Total intravenous anaesthesia [editorial]. Can J Anaesth 1990; 37(3): 279–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Carroll NV, Miederhoff PA, Cox FM, et al. Costs incurred by outpatient surgical centers in managing postoperative nausea and vomiting. J Clin Anesth 1994 Sep/Oct; 6: 364–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Johnstone RE, Martinec CL. Costs of anesthesia. Anesth Analg 1993; 76: 840–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Orkin FK. Moving toward value-based anesthesia care. J Clin Anesth 1993 Mar/Apr; 5: 91–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Adis International Limited, 41 Centorian Drive, Private Bag 65901, Mairangi Bay, Auckland 10, New Zealand

    Bret Fulton & Karen L. Goa

Authors
  1. Bret Fulton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen L. Goa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Various sections of the manuscript reviewed by: R.H. Acland, Christchurch, New Zealand; C.R. Bailey, Department of Anaesthetics, Guys Hospital, London, England; R. Dart, Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, Denver, Colorado, USA; S.G. Graham, Department of Anaesthesia, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, England; R.J. Hudson, Department of Anaesthesia, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; R.E. Johnstone, Department of Anesthesiology, West Virginia University Health Sciences Center, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA; K. Korttila, Department of Anaesthesia, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; N. Nathan, Département d’Anesthésie-Réanimation, Hôpital Universitaire Dupuytren, Limoges, France; S. Ridley, Department of Anaesthesia, Norfolk and Norwich Hospital, Norfolk, England; M.F. Watcha, Department of Anesthesiology, Texas Scottish Rite Hospital, Dallas, Texas, USA; D.S. Watermeyer, Department of Anesthesia, St. Joseph Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington, USA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fulton, B., Goa, K.L. Propofol. Pharmacoeconomics 9, 168–178 (1996). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199609020-00008

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199609020-00008

Keywords

Search

Navigation