Laboratory assessment of the Baxter disposable patient‐controlled analgesia system

Davidson, J. A. H.; Dryden, C.M.; Smith, Douglas D.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.1993.tb06912.x

Cited by 10 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The safety and effectiveness of this non-electronic Table 6. Cost of therapy (Belgian Francs) in patient-PCA system has been previously documented (10, controlled analgesia (PCA) infusor treatment and [14][15][16]. Ballantyne et al [17] found that patients treated conventional intramuscular (i.m.)…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmaco-economic evaluation of a disposable patient-controlled analgesia device and intramuscular analgesia in surgical patients

D’Haese

Vanlersberghe

Umbrain

et al. 1998

European Journal of Anaesthesiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

over 3 days post-operatively. The costs of PCA and i.m. therapies per patient were used to calculate the The present study contrasted the pharmaco-ecocost-benefit (cost of treatment vs. nursing time) and nomics and analgesic efficacy of intramuscular (i.m.)cost-effectiveness (cost of treatment vs. SPID) anaopioid treatment with a parenteral disposable patientlyses. Both treatments initially provided comparable controlled analgesia (PCA) system in two groups of analgesia, but PCA was more efficient after 16 h and 20 female patients (ASA I-II, aged 35-69 years) schedsignificantly reduced nursing time for uled for abdominal hysterectomy. The PCA group repain treatment (PCA=61±4 min, i.m.=88±5 min; ceived a continuous infusion of 1.5 mg h −1 piritramide, P<0.001). Functional recovery was not different for a -opioid receptor agonist, with incremental doses either treatment. Cost analysis indicated a better costof 1.5 mg (lock-out interval=15 min). The i.m. group benefit ratio for the i.m. treatment (0.35 vs. 1.1 for received 0.3 mg kg −1 piritramide i.m. when requested PCA treatment), but a similar cost-effectiveness for by the patient with a minimum interval of 5 h. Pain both treatments (PCA=1.9 Belgian Francs (BEF) unit −1 intensity, sedation and the functional recovery of the SPID; i.m.=1.7 BEF unit −1 SPID). patients were followed for 72 h post-operatively. The sum of pain intensity differences (SPID) was used as a measure of analgesic efficiency. Equipment and drug costs, and the demand on nursing time were recorded post-operative analgesia.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmaco-economic evaluation of a disposable patient-controlled analgesia device and intramuscular analgesia in surgical patients

D’Haese

Vanlersberghe

Umbrain

et al. 1998

European Journal of Anaesthesiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Postoperative patient controlled analgesia using a low-tech PCA system

et al. 1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pharmaco-economic evaluation of a disposable patient-controlled analgesia device and intramuscular analgesia in surgical patients

D’Haese¹,

Vanlersberghe²,

Umbrain³

et al. 1998

Eur J Anaesthesiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study contrasted the pharmaco-economics and analgesic efficacy of intramuscular (i.m.) opioid treatment with a parenteral disposable patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) system in two groups of 20 female patients (ASA I-II, aged 35-69 years) scheduled for abdominal hysterectomy. The PCA group received a continuous infusion of 1.5 mg h-1 piritramide, a mu-opioid receptor agonist, with incremental doses of 1.5 mg (lock-out interval = 15 min). The i.m. group received 0.3 mg kg-1 piritramide i.m. when requested by the patient with a minimum interval of 5 h. Pain intensity, sedation and the functional recovery of the patients were followed for 72 h post-operatively. The sum of pain intensity differences (SPID) was used as a measure of analgesic efficiency. Equipment and drug costs, and the demand on nursing time were recorded over 3 days post-operatively. The costs of PCA and i.m. therapies per patient were used to calculate the cost-benefit (cost of treatment vs. nursing time) and cost-effectiveness (cost of treatment vs. SPID) analyses. Both treatments initially provided comparable analgesia, but PCA was more efficient after 16 h and significantly reduced nursing time for pain treatment (PCA = 61 +/- 4 min, i.m. = 88 +/- 5 min; P < 0.001). Functional recovery was not different for either treatment. Cost analysis indicated a better cost-benefit ratio for the i.m. treatment (0.35 vs. 1.1 for PCA treatment), but a similar cost-effectiveness for both treatments (PCA = 1.9 Belgian Francs (BEF) unit-1 SPID; i.m. = 1.7 BEF unit-1 SPID).

show abstract

Laboratory assessment of the Baxter disposable patient‐controlled analgesia system

Cited by 10 publications

References 9 publications

Pharmaco-economic evaluation of a disposable patient-controlled analgesia device and intramuscular analgesia in surgical patients

Pharmaco-economic evaluation of a disposable patient-controlled analgesia device and intramuscular analgesia in surgical patients

Postoperative patient controlled analgesia using a low-tech PCA system

Pharmaco-economic evaluation of a disposable patient-controlled analgesia device and intramuscular analgesia in surgical patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About