Precision in practice: An audit study on low-flow anesthesia techniques with desflurane and sevoflurane for cost-effective and sustainable care

IF 1.3 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Gopinath Kenkare Chowdappa, Svetoslav Ivanov Iolov, Khaled Saleh Abuamra, Prasad Padmakar Kulkarni, Jameelulla Aleemulla Shariff, Hatem Mohammed Khairy Abdelaziz, Justin Arun Kumar
{"title":"Precision in practice: An audit study on low-flow anesthesia techniques with desflurane and sevoflurane for cost-effective and sustainable care","authors":"Gopinath Kenkare Chowdappa, Svetoslav Ivanov Iolov, Khaled Saleh Abuamra, Prasad Padmakar Kulkarni, Jameelulla Aleemulla Shariff, Hatem Mohammed Khairy Abdelaziz, Justin Arun Kumar","doi":"10.4103/sja.sja_142_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n In the backdrop of escalating healthcare costs and an increasing focus on resource optimization, this audit study delves into the realm of anesthesia management, specifically exploring the application of low-flow anesthesia (LFA). The primary objective was to assess adherence to hospital standards and evaluate the economic implications of LFA (<1 L/min).\n \n \n \n This retrospective audit focused on 700 adult patients undergoing elective surgeries with general anesthesia. Data sources included anesthesia records, electronic recording systems, and audits by a dedicated team. Fresh gas flow rates (FGFRs), minimum alveolar concentration (MAC), and volatile anesthetic consumption were analyzed. Cost comparisons between low-flow and high-flow anesthesia were conducted, employing specific cost per milliliter metrics.\n \n \n \n The average FGFR during the maintenance phase was found to be 0.45 ± 0.88 L/min. Adherence to hospital standards was notably high, with 94.29% of patients being maintained on low-flow gas rates. The differences in anesthetic consumption between low-flow and high-flow FGFR were statistically significant for both desflurane (12.17 ± 10.84 ml/MAC hour versus 43.12 ± 27.25 ml/MAC hour) and sevoflurane (3.48 ± 7.22 ml/MAC hour versus 5.20 ± 5.20 ml/MAC hour, P < 0.001). The calculated savings per patient with low-flow desflurane and sevoflurane anesthesia compared to high flow were found to be 109.25 AED and 6.74 AED, respectively.\n \n \n \n This audit advocates for the widespread adoption of LFA as a standard practice. Beyond aligning with hospital standards, the study highlights the multi-faceted benefits of LFA, encompassing economic savings, environmental safety, and enhanced patient care.\n","PeriodicalId":21533,"journal":{"name":"Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.sja_142_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the backdrop of escalating healthcare costs and an increasing focus on resource optimization, this audit study delves into the realm of anesthesia management, specifically exploring the application of low-flow anesthesia (LFA). The primary objective was to assess adherence to hospital standards and evaluate the economic implications of LFA (<1 L/min). This retrospective audit focused on 700 adult patients undergoing elective surgeries with general anesthesia. Data sources included anesthesia records, electronic recording systems, and audits by a dedicated team. Fresh gas flow rates (FGFRs), minimum alveolar concentration (MAC), and volatile anesthetic consumption were analyzed. Cost comparisons between low-flow and high-flow anesthesia were conducted, employing specific cost per milliliter metrics. The average FGFR during the maintenance phase was found to be 0.45 ± 0.88 L/min. Adherence to hospital standards was notably high, with 94.29% of patients being maintained on low-flow gas rates. The differences in anesthetic consumption between low-flow and high-flow FGFR were statistically significant for both desflurane (12.17 ± 10.84 ml/MAC hour versus 43.12 ± 27.25 ml/MAC hour) and sevoflurane (3.48 ± 7.22 ml/MAC hour versus 5.20 ± 5.20 ml/MAC hour, P < 0.001). The calculated savings per patient with low-flow desflurane and sevoflurane anesthesia compared to high flow were found to be 109.25 AED and 6.74 AED, respectively. This audit advocates for the widespread adoption of LFA as a standard practice. Beyond aligning with hospital standards, the study highlights the multi-faceted benefits of LFA, encompassing economic savings, environmental safety, and enhanced patient care.
实践中的精确性:对使用地氟醚和七氟醚的低流量麻醉技术进行审计研究,以实现具有成本效益的可持续护理
在医疗成本不断攀升、资源优化日益受到重视的背景下,本审计研究深入探讨了麻醉管理领域,特别是低流量麻醉(LFA)的应用。主要目的是评估医院标准的遵守情况,并评估低流量麻醉(<1 L/min)的经济影响。 这项回顾性审计主要针对 700 名接受全身麻醉择期手术的成人患者。数据来源包括麻醉记录、电子记录系统和专门小组的审核。对新鲜气体流速 (FGFR)、最小肺泡浓度 (MAC) 和挥发性麻醉剂消耗量进行了分析。采用具体的每毫升成本指标,对低流量和高流量麻醉的成本进行了比较。 结果发现,维持阶段的平均 FGFR 为 0.45 ± 0.88 升/分钟。遵守医院标准的比例明显较高,94.29%的患者使用低流量气体维持麻醉。地氟醚(12.17 ± 10.84 毫升/MAC 小时对 43.12 ± 27.25 毫升/MAC 小时)和七氟烷(3.48 ± 7.22 毫升/MAC 小时对 5.20 ± 5.20 毫升/MAC 小时,P < 0.001)在低流量和高流量 FGFR 之间的麻醉剂消耗量差异具有显著的统计学意义。与高流量相比,低流量地氟醚和七氟醚麻醉为每位患者节省的费用分别为 109.25 AED 和 6.74 AED。 此次审计倡导将低流量麻醉作为标准实践广泛采用。除了符合医院标准外,该研究还强调了低负流麻醉的多方面优势,包括经济节约、环境安全和增强患者护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
141
审稿时长
36 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信