2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Sugammadex versus neostigmine for routine reversal of rocuronium block in adult patients: A cost analysis

      , ,

      Journal of Clinical Anesthesia

      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Daily cost of an intensive care unit day: the contribution of mechanical ventilation.

          To quantify the mean daily cost of intensive care, identify key factors associated with increased cost, and determine the incremental cost of mechanical ventilation during a day in the intensive care unit. Retrospective cohort analysis using data from NDCHealth's Hospital Patient Level Database. A total of 253 geographically diverse U.S. hospitals. The study included 51,009 patients >/=18 yrs of age admitted to an intensive care unit between October 1, 2002, and December 31, 2002. None. Days of intensive care and mechanical ventilation were identified using billing data, and daily costs were calculated as the sum of daily charges multiplied by hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratios. Cost data are presented as mean (+/-sd). Incremental daily cost of mechanical ventilation was calculated using log-linear regression, adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. Approximately 36% of identified patients were mechanically ventilated at some point during their intensive care unit stay. Mechanically ventilated patients were older (63.5 yrs vs. 61.7 yrs, p < .0001) and more likely to be male (56.1% vs. 51.8%, p < 0.0001), compared with patients who were not mechanically ventilated, and required mechanical ventilation for a mean duration of 5.6 days +/- 9.6. Mean intensive care unit cost and length of stay were 31,574 +/- 42,570 dollars and 14.4 days +/- 15.8 for patients requiring mechanical ventilation and 12,931 +/- 20,569 dollars and 8.5 days +/- 10.5 for those not requiring mechanical ventilation. Daily costs were greatest on intensive care unit day 1 (mechanical ventilation, 10,794 dollars; no mechanical ventilation, 6,667 dollars), decreased on day 2 (mechanical ventilation:, 4,796 dollars; no mechanical ventilation, 3,496 dollars), and became stable after day 3 (mechanical ventilation, 3,968 dollars; no mechanical ventilation, 3,184 dollars). Adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, the mean incremental cost of mechanical ventilation in intensive care unit patients was 1,522 dollars per day (p < .001). Intensive care unit costs are highest during the first 2 days of admission, stabilizing at a lower level thereafter. Mechanical ventilation is associated with significantly higher daily costs for patients receiving treatment in the intensive care unit throughout their entire intensive care unit stay. Interventions that result in reduced intensive care unit length of stay and/or duration of mechanical ventilation could lead to substantial reductions in total inpatient cost.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force.

            Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting. The task force's overall goal was to provide recommendations to optimize the reporting of health economic evaluations. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance. The CHEERS Elaboration and Explanation Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force facilitates the use of the CHEERS statement by providing examples and explanations for each recommendation. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. Previously published checklists or guidance documents related to reporting economic evaluations were identified from a systematic review and subsequent survey of task force members. A list of possible items from these efforts was created. A two-round, modified Delphi Panel with representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, and government, as well as the editorial community, was used to identify a minimum set of items important for reporting from the larger list. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed, with some specific recommendations for single study-based and model-based economic evaluations. The final recommendations are subdivided into six main categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods, 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) other. The recommendations are contained in the CHEERS statement, a user-friendly 24-item checklist. The task force report provides explanation and elaboration, as well as an example for each recommendation. The ISPOR CHEERS statement is available online via Value in Health or the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices - CHEERS Task Force webpage (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope that the ISPOR CHEERS statement and the accompanying task force report guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate wider dissemination and uptake of this guidance, we are copublishing the CHEERS statement across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups to consider endorsing the CHEERS statement. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years. Copyright © 2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Understanding Costs of Care in the Operating Room

              Importance Increasing value requires improving quality or decreasing costs. In surgery, estimates for the cost of 1 minute of operating room (OR) time vary widely. No benchmark exists for the cost of OR time, nor has there been a comprehensive assessment of what contributes to OR cost. Objectives To calculate the cost of 1 minute of OR time, assess cost by setting and facility characteristics, and ascertain the proportion of costs that are direct and indirect. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis examined annual financial disclosure documents from all comparable short-term general and specialty care hospitals in California from fiscal year (FY) 2005 to FY2014 (N = 3044; FY2014, n = 302). The analysis focused on 2 revenue centers: (1) surgery and recovery and (2) ambulatory surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures Mean cost of 1 minute of OR time, stratified by setting (inpatient vs ambulatory), teaching status, and hospital ownership. The proportion of cost attributable to indirect and direct expenses was identified; direct expenses were further divided into salary, benefits, supplies, and other direct expenses. Results In FY2014, a total of 175 of 302 facilities (57.9%) were not for profit, 78 (25.8%) were for profit, and 49 (16.2%) were government owned. Thirty facilities (9.9%) were teaching hospitals. The mean (SD) cost for 1 minute of OR time across California hospitals was $37.45 ($16.04) in the inpatient setting and $36.14 ($19.53) in the ambulatory setting ( P  = .65). There were no differences in mean expenditures when stratifying by ownership or teaching status except that teaching hospitals had lower mean (SD) expenditures than nonteaching hospitals in the inpatient setting ($29.88 [$9.06] vs $38.29 [$16.43]; P  = .006). Direct expenses accounted for 54.6% of total expenses ($20.40 of $37.37) in the inpatient setting and 59.1% of total expenses ($20.90 of $35.39) in the ambulatory setting. Wages and benefits accounted for approximately two-thirds of direct expenses (inpatient, $14.00 of $20.40; ambulatory, $14.35 of $20.90), with nonbillable supplies accounting for less than 10% of total expenses (inpatient, $2.55 of $37.37; ambulatory, $3.33 of $35.39). From FY2005 to FY2014, expenses in the OR have increased faster than the consumer price index and medical consumer price index. Teaching hospitals had slower growth in costs than nonteaching hospitals. Over time, the proportion of expenses dedicated to indirect costs has increased, while the proportion attributable to salary and supplies has decreased. Conclusions and Relevance The mean cost of OR time is $36 to $37 per minute, using financial data from California’s short-term general and specialty hospitals in FY2014. These statewide data provide a generalizable benchmark for the value of OR time. Furthermore, understanding the composition of costs will allow those interested in value improvement to identify high-yield targets. This cross-sectional analysis of annual financial disclosure documents calculates the cost of 1 minute of operating room time, assesses cost by setting and facility characteristics, and ascertains the proportion of costs that are direct and indirect. Questions What is the cost of 1 minute of operating room time, and what contributes to this cost? Findings In this cross-sectional analysis, the mean cost of operating room time in fiscal year 2014 for California’s acute care hospitals was $36 to $37 per minute; $20 to $21 of this amount is direct cost, with $13 to $14 attributable to wages and benefits and $2.50 to $3.50 attributable to surgical supplies. Meaning These numbers are the first standardized estimates of operating room cost; understanding the composition of costs will allow those interested in value improvement to identify high-yield targets.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Clinical Anesthesia
                Journal of Clinical Anesthesia
                Elsevier BV
                09528180
                December 2020
                December 2020
                : 67
                : 110027
                Article
                10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.110027
                © 2020

                Comments

                Comment on this article