A cost-effectiveness analysis of propofol versus midazolam for the sedation of adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit.

Objective: To build a cost-effectiveness model to compare the use of propofol versus midazolam in critically ill adult patients under mechanical ventilation.

Methods: We built a decision tree model for critically ill patients submitted to mechanical ventilation and analyzed it from the Brazilian private health care system perspective. The time horizon was that of intensive care unit hospitalization. The outcomes were cost-effectiveness per hour of intensive care unit stay avoided and cost-effectiveness per hour of mechanical ventilation avoided. We retrieved data for the model from a previous meta-analysis. We assumed that the cost of medication was embedded in the intensive care unit cost. We conducted univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: Mechanically ventilated patients using propofol had their intensive care unit stay and the duration of mechanical ventilation decreased by 47.97 hours and 21.65 hours, respectively. There was an average cost reduction of US$ 2,998.971 for propofol when compared to midazolam. The cost-effectiveness per hour of intensive care unit stay and mechanical ventilation avoided were dominant 94.40% and 80.8% of the time, respectively.

Conclusion: There was a significant reduction in costs associated with propofol use related to intensive care unit stay and duration of mechanical ventilation for critically ill adult patients.