Loading…

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Levobupivacaine 0.5 %, a Local Anesthetic, Infusion in the Surgical Wound After Modified Radical Mastectomy

Background and Objective Effective treatment of postoperative pain contributes to decreasing the rate of complications as well as the total cost of the operated patients. The aim of this study was to analyze the costs and the efficiency of use of continuous infusion of levobupivacaine 0.5 % with the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical drug investigation 2015-09, Vol.35 (9), p.575-582
Main Authors: Ferreira Laso, Lourdes, López Picado, Amanda, Antoñanzas Villar, Fernando, Lamata de la Orden, Laura, Ceballos Garcia, Mar, Ibañez López, Carolina, Pipaon Ruilope, Lorena, Lamata Hernandez, Felix, Valero Martinez, Cesar, Aizpuru, Felipe, Hernandez Chaves, Roberto
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background and Objective Effective treatment of postoperative pain contributes to decreasing the rate of complications as well as the total cost of the operated patients. The aim of this study was to analyze the costs and the efficiency of use of continuous infusion of levobupivacaine 0.5 % with the help of an infusion pump in modified radical mastectomy. Methods A cost calculation of the analgesic procedures (continuous infusion of levobupivacaine 0.5 % [levobupivacaine group (LG)] or saline [saline group (SG)] (2 ml/h 48 h) has been carried out based on the data of a previous clinical trial (double-blind randomized study) of patients who underwent modified radical mastectomy surgery. The measure of the effectiveness was the point reduction of pain derived from the verbal numeric rating scale (VNRS). The usual incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was performed. Results Considering only the intravenous analgesia, overall costs were lower in LG, as less analgesia was used (EUR14.06 ± 7.89 vs. 27.47 ± 14.79; p  
ISSN:1173-2563
1179-1918
DOI:10.1007/s40261-015-0316-4