title: [Use of 2 % hyperbaric prilocaine for spinal anesthesia : sensitivity analysis in outpatient surgery].
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Hyperbaric prilocaine 2 % has been available for spinal anesthesia in Germany for 2 years and is characterized by a short duration of action, a lack of postspinal urine retention and a reduction of transient neurological syndromes. However, desirable pharmacological properties are contrasted by higher pharmacological costs compared to hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 %.
  
  
  METHODS
  This paper deals with a sensitivity analysis for the use of hyperbaric prilocaine 2 % versus hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % in Germany and investigates the financial break-even point up to which time a shorter patient stay in the recovery area compensates for the higher costs for the use of prilocaine 2 % for ambulatory spinal aaesthesia. A sensitivity analysis is an instrument of investment appraisal. It is a model to reduce a complex system with numerous variables to a straightforward calculation by assuming a framework requirement and systematically changing only one or two variables. In this paper additional costs for spinal anesthesia have been neglected, only the time a nurse spends with the patient in the recovery area and the costs for each vial of drug have been taken into account.
  
  
  RESULTS
  For the assumption of 75 min time until leaving the recovery area and being discharged after spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric prilocaine 2 % versus 150 min (recovery of motor competence) or 405 min (voiding) with hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % the calculation shows a cost benefit for hyperbaric prilocaine 2 % of EUR 11.64 or EUR 64.76 compared to hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % and EUR 13.32 or EUR 66.44 compared to isobaric bupivacaine 0.5 %. Under the assumption that all patients who have received spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % can be discharged from the recovery area after 150 min, the use of hyperbaric prilocaine 2 % remains more economical as long as the patient is discharged from the recovery area within 130 min. If 405 min recovery time is assumed for hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % the costs compared with hyperbaric prilocaine 2 % will be compensated after 300 min. To be more economical compared to patients with hyperbaric prilocaine 2 % those who received hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % must be discharged from the recovery area within at least 100 min. However, a time of less than 160 min for discharge from the recovery area is not published anywhere in the literature. In summary, the use of hyperbaric prilocaine 2 % for 60 min operation time is cheaper than the use of bupivacaine 0.5 % as long as patients do not stay in the recovery area for longer than 120 min and are discharged from the recovery area.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  For German framework conditions the use of hyperbaric prilocaine 2 % can provide an economical advantage compared to the use of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % if staff assignment can be flexible.
authors.affiliation: Krankenhaus Hetzelstift, Stiftstr. 10, 67434, Neustadt an der Weinstraße, Deutschland. d.vagts@new.marienhaus-gmbh.de
authors.forename: D A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Vagts
authors.forename: C H
authors.initials: CH
authors.lastname: Bley
authors.forename: C W
authors.initials: CW
authors.lastname: Mutz
mesh_terms: D000556:Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; D000762:Anesthesia Recovery Period; D000775:Anesthesia, Spinal / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000191:economics; D000779:Anesthetics, Local / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000191:economics; D002045:Bupivacaine / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000191:economics; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D016527:Drug Costs; D005858:Germany; D006801:Humans; D018803:Models, Economic; D009729:Nursing / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D010045:Outpatients; D011318:Prilocaine / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000191:economics
chemical_list: D000779:Anesthetics, Local; D011318:Prilocaine; D002045:Bupivacaine
references.citation: Can J Anaesth. 2001 Apr;48(4):369-74
references.pmid: 11339779
references.citation: Anesth Analg. 2002 Jan;94(1):194-8, table of contents
references.pmid: 11772827
references.citation: Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 1996 Nov;31(9):575-6
references.pmid: 9063924
references.citation: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2004 Mar;12(2):155-8
references.pmid: 15024563
references.citation: Minerva Anestesiol. 2004 Jun;70(6):493-502
references.pmid: 15235555
references.citation: Anesthesiology. 1998 Mar;88(3):629-33
references.pmid: 9523805
references.citation: Anaesthesist. 2007 Apr;56(4):322-7
references.pmid: 17273833
references.citation: Br J Anaesth. 2003 Mar;90(3):304-8
references.pmid: 12594141
references.citation: Minerva Anestesiol. 2010 Feb;76(2):120-30
references.pmid: 20150853
references.citation: Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2007 Dec;20(6):545-57
references.pmid: 17989548
references.citation: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Suppl. 1966;25:54-8
references.pmid: 4886154
references.citation: Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 2010 Mar;45(3):176-80
references.pmid: 20232274
references.citation: Anesth Analg. 2005 Dec;101(6):1634-1642
references.pmid: 16301234
references.citation: Anaesth Intensive Care. 1984 May;12(2):101-7
references.pmid: 6476342
references.citation: Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 1996 Nov;31(9):573-4
references.pmid: 9063923
references.citation: Anesth Analg. 2000 Dec;91(6):1457-60
references.pmid: 11094000
references.citation: Can J Urol. 2011 Jun;18(3):5705-9
references.pmid: 21703044
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Apr 15;(2):CD003006
references.pmid: 19370578
references.citation: Br J Anaesth. 2010 May;104(5):582-6
references.pmid: 20338955
references.citation: Br J Anaesth. 2004 Oct;93(4):568-78
references.pmid: 15220175
references.citation: Anesth Analg. 2010 Aug;111(2):568-72
references.pmid: 20529983
references.citation: Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 1997 Apr;32(4):263
references.pmid: 9289033
references.citation: Anesthesiology. 1998 Feb;88(2):310-6
references.pmid: 9477049
references.citation: Anesth Analg. 1996 Oct;83(4):716-20
references.pmid: 8831308
references.citation: Anesthesiology. 1999 Nov;91(5):1260-6
references.pmid: 10551575