Pharmacoeconomics of intravenous regional anaesthesia vs general anaesthesia for outpatient hand surgery.

PURPOSE: To compare the cost and effectiveness of intravenous regional anaesthesia (IVRA) with general anaesthesia (GA) for outpatient hand surgery.

METHOD: A retrospective record analysis of 121 patients who received IVRA were compared with 64 patients who received GA in our Daycare centre. The costs of anaesthesia and recovery were calculated from an institutional perspective using 1995 Canadian Dollar values. Effectiveness was measured in terms of time for anaesthesia, recovery and discharge, % with unsatisfactory anaesthesia and complications.

RESULTS: Both groups were well matched in terms of weight, sex and ASA class. Patients in the IVRA group were older (45 +/- 16 vs 38 +/- 13 yr) and had a lower frequency of two types of operation. The median total cost for the IVRA group of $24.60 (15.76-55.29) was less than that for the GA group of +f448.66 (35.59-73.11), (P < 0.00001). Anaesthesia was unsatisfactory in 11% of the IVRA group, but in none having GA,(P < 0.01). Recovery was faster in the IVRA group with a median time to discharge of 70 (35-180) min compared with 118 (45-320) min in the GA group, (P < 0.00001). Vomiting requiring treatment occurred in 5% of the GA group, but in none having IVRA, (P < 0.05). Dizziness which delayed discharged also occurred in 5% of the GA group, but in none having IVRA, (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: The cost of anaesthesia and recovery using IVRA for outpatient hand surgery was half that of GA. intravenous regional anaesthesia was less effective than GA in achieving satisfactory anaesthesia, equally effective in time to administer anaesthesia, and more effective in speeding recovery and minimising postoperative complications.