• Elisabeth Fenwick, Jonathan Wilson, Mark Sculpher, and Karl Claxton.
• Centre for Health Economics, IRISS, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK. ealf100@york.ac.uk
• Intensive Care Med. 2002 May 1;28(5):599-608.

ObjectiveTo compare the cost and cost-effectiveness of a policy of pre-operative optimisation of oxygen delivery (using either adrenaline or dopexamine) to reduce the risk associated with major elective surgery, in high-risk patients.MethodsA cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a randomised controlled trial (RCT). In the RCT 138 patients undergoing major elective surgery were allocated to receive pre-operative optimisation employing either adrenaline or dopexamine (assigned randomly), or to receive routine peri-operative care. Differential health service costs were based on trial data on the number and cause of hospital in-patient days and the utilisation of health care resources. These were costed using unit costs from a UK hospital. The cost-effectiveness analysis related differential costs to differential life-years during a 2 year trial follow-up.ResultsThe mean number of in-patient days was 16 in the pre-optimised groups (19 adrenaline; 13 dopexamine) and 22 in the standard care group. The number (%) of deaths, over a 2 year follow-up, was 24 (26%) in the pre-optimised groups and 15 (33%) in the standard care group. The mean total costs were EUR 11,310 in the pre-optimised groups and EUR 16,965 in the standard care group. Life-years were 1.68 in the pre-optimised groups and 1.46 in the standard care group. The probability that pre-operative optimisation is less costly than standard care is 98%. The probability that it dominates standard care is 93%.ConclusionsBased on resource use and effectiveness data collected in the trial, pre-operative optimisation of high-risk surgical patients undergoing major elective surgery is cost-effective compared with standard treatment.

27 keywords...

hide…