Key result
TIVA shows comparable 6-month cost-effectiveness to inhalational anaesthesia in surgical patients.
Why the study?
Total intravenous and inhalational anaesthesia are widely used for major non-cardiac surgery, but their comparative cost-effectiveness remains uncertain.
Does total intravenous anaesthesia improve cost-effectiveness compared to inhalational anaesthesia in adults aged ≥ 50 y undergoing major non-cardiac surgery?
RCT (n=2,507)
Stratified by surgical speciality, estimated duration of surgery, underlying pathology, and frailty
Yes
Does total intravenous anaesthesia improve cost-effectiveness compared to inhalational anaesthesia in adults aged ≥ 50 y undergoing major non-cardiac surgery?
Supports individualized anaesthetic choice; confirms equivalent cost-effectiveness of total intravenous versus inhalational anaesthesia in major non-cardiac surgery.
INTRODUCTION: Total intravenous and inhalational anaesthesia are used widely to maintain general anaesthesia for major non-cardiac surgery, yet their comparative cost-effectiveness remains uncertain. The VITAL trial evaluated clinical outcomes, showing no difference in days alive and at home at 30 days. We conducted an economic evaluation alongside VITAL to determine whether total intravenous anaesthesia offers an economic advantage within the UK NHS. METHODS: A within-trial economic evaluation was conducted from the NHS and personal social services perspective over a 6-month time horizon. Resource use was collected from trial records and questionnaires, and health-related quality of life was measured using EuroQol five-dimension five-level instrument at baseline, discharge, 30 days and 6 months. Costs were evaluated using national sources and quality-adjusted life years were calculated using the area under the curve approach. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated using imputed datasets, with uncertainty explored through bootstrapping and the probability of cost-effectiveness illustrated using a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve across a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. RESULTS: A total of 2507 patients were allocated randomly: 1253 (50%) received total intravenous anaesthesia; and 1254 (50%) inhalational anaesthesia. Mean costs and quality-adjusted life years were similar across groups. Incremental cost was -£145 (95%CI -£1510-£1220) and incremental quality-adjusted life years -0.001 (95%CI -0.008-0.005). Total intravenous anaesthesia showed a 56-57% probability of cost-effectiveness at standard willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses, including complete-case and societal-perspective models, yielded consistent findings of equivalence. DISCUSSION: Total intravenous and inhalational anaesthesia show comparable cost-effectiveness for adults aged ≥ 50 y undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. Given clinical equipoise and equivalent economic outcomes, anaesthetic choice should continue to be guided by patient factors, clinician expertise and organisational context. Further research may be justified given the large population undergoing major surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Frempong et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Major non-cardiac surgery requiring general anaesthesia (n=2,507). Total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) vs. Inhalational anaesthesia was evaluated on Incremental cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (Incremental cost -£145, 95% CI -1510 to 1220). Total intravenous anaesthesia demonstrated comparable cost-effectiveness to inhalational anaesthesia, with an incremental cost of -£145 and incremental QALYs of -0.001 over 6 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: