OBJECTIVES: Conduct cost minimization and budgetary impact assessment comparing the costs of using propofol in a pre-filled syringe (PFS) and in an ampoule vial for use in general anesthesia.

METHODS: The cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was conducted from the perspective of a private hospital, over a time horizon of one year. Patients (children or adults of both sexes) who underwent surgical procedures that require total intravenous anesthesia with propofol was included. It was considered that propofol in vials would be manipulated in a hospital environment by the team of anesthetists to make syringes with the appropriate dose for use during surgery. Economic outcomes include the acquisition of medicines, the workload of professionals and inputs needed to handle propofol FA, as well as the costs of consequences of possible medication errors and bacterial contamination. A decision-tree model was developed to estimate the economic consequences of using of the different presentations of propofol. A budgetary impact analysis of the implementation of propofol was carried out nested with the CMA presented previously, and therefore, considers the same consequences and costs described in the CMA.

RESULTS: The CMA demonstrated that Diprivan® PFS is the lowest cost alternative when compared to the use of propofol in vials, representing a savings of -R$ 1,133.68 per patient. At the context of one year, when simulating 500 surgeries performed, this savings represents - R$ 566,838.69. A budgetary impact analysis demonstrated a significant cost reduction in the scenario proposed by including propofol PFS, generating savings that ranged from - R$ 113,367 in the first year, to - R$ 430,797 in the fifth year. The total accumulated in five years was - R$ 1,247,045.

CONCLUSIONS: Despite presenting a higher direct acquisition cost, the PFS presentation is capable of reducing substantial costs related to medication errors and bacterial contamination, which can consume resources and prolong the hospitalization time of patients.