Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 1998 May;15(3):297-303.
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2346.1998.00292.x.

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

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

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

J D'Haese et al. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1998 May.

Abstract

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).

PubMed Disclaimer

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources