The environmental superiority of Total Intravenous Anaesthesia (TIVA) compared to inhaled agents has been recognised by ANZCA in a 2019 statement. Yet what about cost? Little current data has been published on this topic. We conducted a cost analysis and audit of propofol use in 71 endoscopy cases (colonoscopy/gastroscopy), taking into account the cost of adjuncts (syringes, tubing, and discarded propofol). We then compared these to calculated costs of the same cases performed with sevoflurane anaesthesia. In terms of the agent, propofol was 35% cheaper, costing $1.60 for an average endoscopy compared to a sevoflurane cost of $2.46. Including the cost of adjuncts (including a laryngeal mask airway for sevoflurane anaesthesia), endoscopy cases with propofol infusions were 80% cheaper than the same case performed under sevoflurane general anaesthesia ($3.08 vs $15.48). Although pricing may vary from hospital to hospital, our data suggests choosing propofol costs less in endoscopy.
展开▼
机译：与吸入剂相比，静脉内麻醉（TiVA）的环境优势已被Anzca在2019年陈述中识别。那么成本怎么样？本主题发布了几乎电流数据。我们在71例内窥镜检查病例（结肠镜检查/胃镜检查）中进行了成本分析和审计，考虑到辅助（注射器，管道和丢弃的异丙酚）的成本。然后，我们将这些与七氟醚麻醉进行的同一病例的计算成本进行比较。就药剂而言，丙多酚便宜35％，平均内窥镜耗时为1.60美元，与七氟醚成本为2.46美元。包括辅助辅助（包括六氟醚麻醉的喉部遮蔽气道）的成本，具有异丙酚输注的内窥镜检查病例比在七氟醚一般麻醉下的相同案例便宜80％（$ 3.08 vs $ 15.48）。虽然定价可能因医院到医院而异，但我们的数据表明，在内窥镜检查中选择异丙酚的成本更低。
展开▼
