• B E Rittenhouse and M Choinière.
• University of Montreal.
• Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999 Jan 1;15(3):548-62.

ObjectivesTo assess the economics of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) treatment versus regular intramuscular (i.m.) injections of opioid analgesia for pain management after hysterectomy.MethodsCost-minimization analysis was used based on the comparable pain control results achieved in the two treatment groups. Observations were taken of treatment-related events with personnel (mostly nursing) time implications during the trial. Times were then associated with these events in an independent study of personnel activity. Costs were linked by using average wage rates for the various personnel for the Montreal area during the time of the study. Drug and material costs were hospital acquisition costs for all items. The cost of the PCA pump itself was not included in the analysis. Several analyses were performed to test the sensitivity of the results to various assumptions.ResultsThe results for total costs of the two therapies generally showed PCA to be more costly than regular i.m. injections despite no costs of the pump being included in the analyses. These results were robust with respect to changes in assumptions. Even when intentionally biasing the analysis against i.m. therapy, it was difficult to obtain results that favored PCA.ConclusionsBased upon the institutions and assumptions in this analysis, PCA offers no cost advantages over regular i.m. therapy in the pain management after hysterectomy. Regular i.m. injections provided less costly analgesia.

21 keywords...

hide…