CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Frighetto, L.
Right arrow Articles by Marra, C. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Frighetto, L.
Right arrow Articles by Marra, C. A.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 46, 536-543, Copyright © 1999 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society

ARTICLES

Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic dolasetron or droperidol vs rescue therapy in the prevention of PONV in ambulatory gynecologic surgery

L Frighetto, PS Loewen, J Dolman and CA Marra
Clinical Drug Research Program, CSU Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre, BC, Canada.

PURPOSE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic therapy (1.25 mg droperidol or 50 mg dolasetron i.v.) vs no prophylaxis (rescue therapy) for the prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) from a Canadian hospital perspective. METHODS: Design: A predictive decision analytic model using previously published clinical and economic evaluations, and costs of medical care in Canada. Subjects: Ambulatory gynecology surgery patients. Interventions: Three strategies administered prior to emergence from anesthesia were compared: 1.25 mg droperidol i.v., 50 mg dolasetron i.v.; and no prophylaxis (rescue therapy). RESULTS: The base case mean cost per patient receiving dolasetron prophylaxis was $28.08 CAN compared with $26.88 CAN per patient receiving droperidol prophylaxis, resulting in a marginal cost of $1.20 CAN. This difference translated in an additional cost of $12.00 CAN for the dolasetron strategy per adverse event avoided over the droperidol strategy. The base case mean cost per patient not receiving prophylaxis was $26.92 resulting in marginal costs of $1.16 CAN and $0.04 CAN when compared to dolasetron and droperidol, respectively. Compared with the no prophylaxis strategy, dolasetron prophylaxis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5.82 CAN per additional PONV-free patient. The mean costs incurred per PONV-free patient were calculated to be $48.41 for the dolasetron strategy, $46.34 for the droperidol strategy and $70.83 for the no prophylaxis strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Dolasetron and droperidol given intraoperatively were more cost-effective than no prophylaxis for PONV in patients undergoing ambulatory gynecologic surgery. The difference between the two agents was small and favoured droperidol. The model was robust to plausible changes through sensitivity analyses.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
T. J. Gan, T. A. Meyer, C. C. Apfel, F. Chung, P. J. Davis, A. S. Habib, V. D. Hooper, A. L. Kovac, P. Kranke, P. Myles, et al.
Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia Guidelines for the Management of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2007; 105(6): 1615 - 1628.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The Annals of PharmacotherapyHome page
S. M Wilhelm, M. L Dehoorne-Smith, and P. B Kale-Pradhan
Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
Ann. Pharmacother., January 1, 2007; 41(1): 68 - 78.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
J. M. Richman, S. S. Liu, G. Courpas, R. Wong, A. J. Rowlingson, J. McGready, S. R. Cohen, and C. L. Wu
Does Continuous Peripheral Nerve Block Provide Superior Pain Control to Opioids? A Meta-Analysis
Anesth. Analg., January 1, 2006; 102(1): 248 - 257.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Canadian J. AnesthesiaHome page
D. Rusch, L. Eberhart, A. Biedler, J. Dethling, and C. C. Apfel
Prospective application of a simplified risk score to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting: [L'application prospective d'un score de risque simplifie pour prevenir les nausees et les vomissements postoperatoires]
Can J Anesth, May 1, 2005; 52(5): 478 - 484.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Canadian J. AnesthesiaHome page
A. S. Habib and T. J. Gan
Evidence-based management of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a review: [Le traitement des nausees et des vomissements postoperatoires fonde sur des donnees probantes : une revue]
Can J Anesth, April 1, 2004; 51(4): 326 - 341.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
T. J. Gan, T. Meyer, C. C. Apfel, F. Chung, P. J. Davis, S. Eubanks, A. Kovac, B. K. Philip, D. I. Sessler, J. Temo, et al.
Consensus Guidelines for Managing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2003; 97(1): 62 - 71.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Canadian J. AnesthesiaHome page
S. N. Piper, S. W. Suttner, K. D. Rohm, W. H. Maleck, E. Larbig, and J. Boldt
Dolasetron, but not metoclopramide prevents nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: [Le dolasetron, non le metoclopramide, previent les nausees et les vomissements chez des patients qui subissent une cholecystectomie laparoscopique]
Can J Anesth, December 1, 2002; 49(10): 1021 - 1028.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
M. Coloma, J. W. Chiu, P. F. White, W. K. Tongier, L. L. Duffy, and S. C. Armbruster
Fast-Tracking After Immersion Lithotripsy: General Anesthesia Versus Monitored Anesthesia Care
Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2000; 91(1): 92 - 96.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1999 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.