Which anaesthetic agents and techniques are most cost-effective in day surgery?

ISRCTN	ISRCTN87609400
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN87609400
Secondary identifying numbers	HTA 96/15/05

Submission date: 25/04/2003
Registration date: 25/04/2003
Last edited: 08/11/2022

Recruitment status: No longer recruiting
Overall study status: Completed
Condition category: Other

Prospectively registered

Protocol

Statistical analysis plan

Results

Individual participant data

Plain English summary of protocol

Not provided at time of registration

Contact information

Dr Rachel Elliott
Scientific

Health Services Research Unit
Polwarth Building
Foresterhill
Aberdeen
AB25 2ZD
United Kingdom

Phone	+44 (0)1224 553732
Email	c.glazener@abdn.ac.uk

Study information

Study design	Randomised controlled trial
Primary study design	Interventional
Secondary study design	Randomised controlled trial
Study setting(s)	Not specified
Study type	Not Specified
Scientific title	Which anaesthetic agents and techniques are most cost-effective in day surgery?
Study objectives	Literature review, national survey and randomised controlled trial. This study uses a prospective randomised controlled trial design, to assess the relative cost effectiveness of inhalational and total intravenous anaesthesia, in day case surgery for adult and paediatric patients requiring general anaesthesia. The objectives are to: 1. Assess the relative clinical outcomes of principle anaesthetic methods used in adult and paediatric day surgery 2. Identify the resource use and associated costs incurred by the NHS during the anaesthetic and post anaesthetic period for principle anaesthetic methods 3. Determine patient acceptability of principal anaesthetic methods used 4. Use clinical, economic and humanistic data collected in this study to assess the relative cost effectiveness of principle anaesthetic methods used.
Ethics approval(s)	Not provided at time of registration
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied	Not applicable
Intervention	The adult study has four arms (propofol then propofol; propofol then isoflurane/N2O propofol then sevoflurane then sevoflurane/N2O), 330 patients in each arm. The paediatric study has two arms (thiopentone [ages 3 to 6] or propofol [ages 7 to 10] then halothane/N2O; sevoflurane then hevoflurane/N2O [ages 3 to 10]), 220 patients in each arm.
Intervention type	Drug
Pharmaceutical study type(s)
Phase	Not Specified
Drug / device / biological / vaccine name(s)	propofol, isoflurane, sevoflurane, thiopentone, halothane
Primary outcome measure	Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV)
Secondary outcome measures	Not provided at time of registration
Overall study start date	01/03/1999
Completion date	31/07/2001

Eligibility

Participant type(s)	Patient
Age group	Other
Sex	Both
Target number of participants	1,760
Key inclusion criteria	Adult general, orthopaedic and gynaecology patients, and paediatric general and ear, nose and throat (ENT) patients.
Key exclusion criteria	Not provided at time of registration
Date of first enrolment	01/03/1999
Date of final enrolment	31/07/2001

Locations

Countries of recruitment

Scotland
United Kingdom

Study participating centre

Health Services Research Unit

Aberdeen
AB25 2ZD
United Kingdom

Sponsor information

Department of Health (UK)
Government

Quarry House
Quarry Hill
Leeds
LS2 7UE
United Kingdom

Phone	+44 (0)1132 545 843
Email	Sheila.Greener@doh.gsi.gov.uk
Website	http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/index.htm
"ROR"	https://ror.org/03sbpja79

Funders

Funder type

Government

NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme - HTA (UK)

No information available

Results and Publications

Intention to publish date
Individual participant data (IPD) Intention to share	No
IPD sharing plan summary	Not provided at time of registration
Publication and dissemination plan	Not provided at time of registration
IPD sharing plan	Not provided at time of registration

Study outputs

Output type	Details	Date created	Date added	Peer reviewed?	Patient-facing?
Results article	HTA monograph	01/10/2002		Yes	No

Editorial Notes

08/11/2022: Internal review.