This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sá Rêgo, M. M. Articles by White, P. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sá Rêgo, M. M. Articles by White, P. F.

---

AMBULATORY ANESTHESIA

The Cost-Effectiveness of Methohexital Versus Propofol for Sedation During Monitored Anesthesia Care

Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas

Address correspondence and reprint requests to P. F. White, PhD, MD, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, UT Southwestern Medical Center, 5161 Harry Hines Blvd., Suite CS 2.202, Dallas, TX 75235-9068. Address e-mail to pwhite{at}mednet.swmed.edu

We designed this study to test the hypothesis that methohexital is a cost-effective alternative to propofol for sedation during local anesthesia. Sixty consenting women undergoing breast biopsy procedures under local anesthesia were randomly assigned to receive an infusion of either propofol (50 µg · kg^-1 · min^-1) or methohexital (40 µg · kg^-1 · min^-1). The sedative infusion rate was titrated to maintain an observer’s assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) score of 3 (with 1 = awake/alert to 5 = asleep). Fentanyl 25 µg IV was administered as a "rescue" analgesic during the operation. We assessed the level of sedation (OAA/S score), vital signs, time to achieve an OAA/S score of 3 at the onset and a score of 1 after discontinuing the infusion, discharge times, perioperative side effects, and patient satisfaction. The direct cost of methohexital was lower than that of propofol, based on the milligram dosage infused during the operation. The sedative onset (to achieve an OAA/S score of 3) and the recovery (to return to an OAA/S score of 1) times, as well as discharge times, did not differ between the two groups. Patients receiving methohexital had a significantly lower incidence of pain on initial injection compared with those receiving propofol (10% vs 23%). Because the use of methohexital (29.4 ± 2.7 µg · kg^-1 · min^-1) for sedation during breast biopsy procedures has a similar efficacy and recovery profile to that of propofol (36.8 ± 15.9 µg · kg^-1 · min^-1) and is less costly based on the amount infused, it seems to be a cost-effective alternative to propofol for sedation during local anesthesia. However, when the cost of the drug infused and drug wasted was calculated, there was no difference in the overall drug cost.

Implications: When administered to maintain a stable level of sedation during local anesthesia, methohexital is an acceptable alternative to propofol. However, the overall drug costs were similar with the two drugs.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. L. Chernin, B. Smiler, P. F. White, and M. Sa Rego The cost-effectiveness of methohexital versus propofol: the stability of reconstituted methohexital should eliminate waste. Anesth. Analg., October 1, 1999; 89(4): 1064 - 1064. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Sun, M. F. Watcha, P. F. White, G. D. Skrivanek, J. D. Griffin, L. Stool, and M. T. Murphy A Cost Comparison of Methohexital and Propofol for Ambulatory Anesthesia Anesth. Analg., August 1, 1999; 89(2): 311 - 311. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]