Ökonomische Aspekte beim Einsatz moderner Inhalationsanästhetika am Beispiel des Sevofluran

The economic impact of the new German health care laws requires an awareness of cost-effectiveness when using newer drugs. The main goal in patient care, i.e., effective treatment, must be achieved by the rational use of restricted resources at a maximum degree of effectiveness. Economic aspects of the new inhalational anaesthetics such as sevoflurane are discussed in this article. The cost of inhalational anaesthetic agents accounts for up to 5% of all the running expenses of an anaesthesia department. The consumption and cost of an inhalational agent depend on fresh gas flow, vapour setting, and duration of anaesthesia. Comparing the cost for 1 MAC-h of anaesthesia, desflurane is more expensive at current market prices than sevoflurane and isoflurane. However, at low or minimal fresh-gas flows, the price for one MAC-h is almost the same for these volatile anaesthetics. Total intravenous anaesthesia using propofol is even more expensive, partly due to wastage, i.e., opened ampoules with a remainder of propofol that has to be discarded after each case. When choosing an anaesthetic agent, the price of 1?ml liquid anaesthetic is an important factor. However, the overall cost-effectiveness analysis must balance the cost of the agent with its pharmacodynamic advantages such as more rapid recovery from anaesthesia. Furthermore, the indirect costs of side effects have to be taken into account. For example, nausea and vomiting lead to a prolonged stay in the recovery room after anaesthesia for outpatient surgery, which in turn incurs additional costs for antiemetic drugs and the extra time for nursing care. Therefore, a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting and a more rapid recovery from anaesthesia leading to earlier discharge from the recovery room may compensate for the higher price. Volatile agents account for up to 1% of the total intraoperative costs. In analysing the costs of 1?h of anaesthesia, other products such as plasma substitutes and blood products account for a much higher proportion than anaesthetic agents, and reductions or increases in costs pertaining to these products have a bigger impact on overall costs than do volatile anaesthetics. We conclude that volatile anaesthetics account for only a minor portion of the anaesthesia department budget and the cost of anaesthesia delivery. The higher market price of the new agents may be compensated for by the economic impact of fewer side effects and a shorter post-anaesthesia stay in the hospital. In analysing data for sevoflurane, this agent may be cost-effective, for example, for outpatient anaesthesia.