Dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation with propofol or midazolam in intensive care: an economic evaluation.

INTRODUCTION Dexmedetomidine was shown in two European randomized double-blind double-dummy trials (PRODEX and MIDEX) to be non-inferior to propofol and midazolam in maintaining target sedation levels in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Additionally, dexmedetomidine shortened the time to extubation versus both standard sedatives, suggesting that it may reduce ICU resource needs and thus lower ICU costs. Considering resource utilization data from these two trials, we performed a secondary, cost-minimization analysis assessing the economics of dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation. METHODS The total ICU costs associated with each study sedative were calculated on the basis of total study sedative consumption and the number of days patients remained intubated, required non-invasive ventilation, or required ICU care without mechanical ventilation. The daily unit costs for these three consecutive ICU periods were set to decline toward discharge, reflecting the observed reduction in mean daily Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) points between the periods. A number of additional sensitivity analyses were performed, including one in which the total ICU costs were based on the cumulative sum of daily TISS points over the ICU period, and two further scenarios, with declining direct variable daily costs only. RESULTS Based on pooled data from both trials, sedation with dexmedetomidine resulted in lower total ICU costs than using the standard sedatives, with a difference of €2,656 in the median (interquartile range) total ICU costs-€11,864 (€7,070 to €23,457) versus €14,520 (€7,871 to €26,254)-and €1,649 in the mean total ICU costs. The median (mean) total ICU costs with dexmedetomidine compared with those of propofol or midazolam were €1,292 (€747) and €3,573 (€2,536) lower, respectively. The result was robust, indicating lower costs with dexmedetomidine in all sensitivity analyses, including those in which only direct variable ICU costs were considered. The likelihood of dexmedetomidine resulting in lower total ICU costs compared with pooled standard care was 91.0% (72.4% versus propofol and 98.0% versus midazolam). CONCLUSIONS From an economic point of view, dexmedetomidine appears to be a preferable option compared with standard sedatives for providing light to moderate ICU sedation exceeding 24 hours. The savings potential results primarily from shorter time to extubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00479661 (PRODEX), NCT00481312 (MIDEX).

Quantitative T2 mapping of knee cartilage: differentiation of healthy control cartilage and cartilage repair tissue in the knee with unloading - initial results

Purpose: To prospectively determine on T2 cartilage maps the effect of unloading during a clinical magnetic resonance (MR) examination in the postoperative follow-up of patients after matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation (MACT) of the knee joint. Materials and Methods: Ethical approval for this study was provided by the local ethics commission, and written informed consent was obtained. Thirty patients (mean age, 35.4 years +/- 10.5) with a mean postoperative follow-up period of 29.1 months +/- 24.4 were enrolled. A multiecho spin-echo T2-weighted sequence was performed at the beginning (early unloading) and end (late unloading) of the MR examination, with an interval of 45 minutes. Mean and zonal region of interest T2 measurements were obtained in control cartilage and cartilage repair tissue. Statistical analysis of variance was performed. Results: The change in T2 values of control cartilage (early unloading, 50.2 msec +/- 8.4; late unloading, 51.3 msec +/- 8.5) was less pronounced than the change in T2 values of cartilage repair tissue (early unloading, 51.8 msec +/- 11.7; late unloading, 56.1 msec +/- 14.4) (P = .024). The difference between control cartilage and cartilage repair tissue was not significant for early unloading (P = .314) but was significant for late unloading (P = .036). Zonal T2 measurements revealed a higher dependency on unloading for the superficial cartilage layer. Conclusion: Our results suggest that T2 relaxation can be used to assess early and late unloading values of articular cartilage in a clinical setting and that the time point of the quantitative T2 measurement affects the differentiation between native and abnormal articular cartilage. (c) RSNA, 2010.