A Cost Analysis of Propofol Sedation for Outpatient Endoscopy in the Italian Healthcare System
Author(s)
Gribaudo G1, Mandarino FV2, Fanti L2, Azzolini F2, Salmeri N3, Cortesi PA4, Danese S2, Mantovani LG5, Ferrara P6
1University of Bologna, Milan, Italy, 2Department of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University - Scientific Institute San Raffaele, Milan, Lombardia, Italy, 3Gynecology and Obstetrics Unit, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University - Scientific Institute San Raffaele, Milan, Lombardia, Italy, 4Research Centre on Public Health (CESP), University of Milan-Bicocca, Monza, MB, Italy, 5University of Milan Bicocca, Monza, MB, Italy, 6Research Center on Public Health (CESP), Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza, MB, Italy
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: This study investigates the cost-effectiveness and safety of Non-Anesthesiologist Administration of Propofol (NAAP) compared to Anesthesiologist Administration of Propofol (AAP) for outpatient endoscopy within the Italian Healthcare System. This study is designed in two phases: the first part involves conducting a preliminary analysis to compare the adverse event rates between NAAP and AAP using Target Controlled Infusion (TCI) at San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy. The second part is focused on calculating the potential cost savings at both the local and national levels (Italian NHS) that could arise from the broad implementation of NAAP.
METHODS: Phase one involved a cohort study of low-risk patients (ASA scores 1 and 2) who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) and colonoscopies from May 2019 to November 2021. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline characteristics between NAAP and AAP groups. Adverse events were monitored, including hypotension, hypoxia, agitation, and bradycardia. Phase two entailed developing a three-year budget impact model (BIM) from the Italian National Health System (NHS) perspective, comparing costs and resource utilization between NAAP and AAP.
RESULTS: The study included 2,721 EGDs and 2,748 colonoscopies. Post-matching, NAAP and AAP groups showed no significant difference in adverse events (EGD: NAAP 0.4% vs. AAP 1.0%, p=0.452; Colonoscopy: NAAP 3.5% vs. AAP 0.6%, p=0.249). NAAP was associated with higher patient satisfaction and lower propofol dosages. The BIM projected national savings of €124,724,659 over three years with NAAP implementation. NAAP reduced the average cost per EGD and colonoscopy due to decreased preparation and monitoring times, and lower drug usage costs.
CONCLUSIONS: NAAP is a safe, effective, and economically beneficial alternative to AAP for outpatient GI endoscopy. Implementing NAAP could result in substantial cost savings for the Italian NHS while maintaining high patient safety and satisfaction. Future policies should support NAAP adoption, addressing training, and regulatory challenges.
Conference/Value in Health Info
Value in Health, Volume 27, Issue 12, S2 (December 2024)
Code
EE577
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Health Policy & Regulatory, Medical Technologies
Topic Subcategory
Budget Impact Analysis, Diagnostics & Imaging, Public Spending & National Health Expenditures
Disease
Gastrointestinal Disorders, Systemic Disorders/Conditions (Anesthesia, Auto-Immune Disorders (n.e.c.), Hematological Disorders (non-oncologic), Pain)
Explore Related HEOR by Topic