Barbara Phillips-Bute
Duke University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Barbara Phillips-Bute.
Anesthesiology | 2000
Robert P. Hill; David A. Lubarsky; Barbara Phillips-Bute; Jennifer T. Fortney; Mary R. Creed; Peter S. A. Glass; Tong J. Gan
Background: In an era of growing economic constraints on healthcare delivery, anesthesiologists are increasingly expected to understand cost analysis and evaluate clinical practices. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are distressing for patients and may increase costs in an ambulatory surgical unit. The authors compared the cost-effectiveness of four prophylactic intravenous regimens for PONV:—4 mg ondansetron, 0.625 mg droperidol, 1.25 mg droperidol, and placebo. Methods: Adult surgical outpatients at high risk for PONV were studied. Study drugs were administered intravenously within 20 min of induction of nitrous oxide–isoflurane or enflurane anesthesia. A decision-tree analysis was used to group patients into 12 mutually exclusive subgroups based on treatment and outcome. Costs were calculated for the prevention and treatment of PONV. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for each group. Results: Two thousand sixty-one patients were enrolled. Efficacy data for study drugs have been previously reported, and the database from that study was used for pharmacoeconomic analysis. The mean–median total cost per patient who received prophylactic treatment with 4 mg ondansetron, 0.625 mg droperidol, 1.25 mg droperidol, and placebo were
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery | 2003
Madhav Swaminathan; Barbara Phillips-Bute; Peter J. Conlon; Peter K. Smith; Mark F. Newman; Mark Stafford-Smith
112 or
Anesthesia & Analgesia | 1999
Elliott Bennett-Guerrero; Ian J. Welsby; Dunn Tj; Young Lr; Wahl Ta; Diers Tl; Barbara Phillips-Bute; Mark F. Newman; Mg Mythen
16.44,
Anesthesia & Analgesia | 2002
Alina M. Grigore; Hilary P. Grocott; Joseph P. Mathew; Barbara Phillips-Bute; Timothy O. Stanley; Aimee Butler; Kevin P. Landolfo; J. G. Reves; James A. Blumenthal; Mark F. Newman
109 or
The New England Journal of Medicine | 2008
Andrew D. Shaw; Mark Stafford-Smith; William D. White; Barbara Phillips-Bute; Madhav Swaminathan; Carmelo A. Milano; Ian J. Welsby; Solomon Aronson; Joseph P. Mathew; Eric D. Peterson; Mark F. Newman
0.63,
Psychosomatic Medicine | 2006
Barbara Phillips-Bute; Joseph P. Mathew; James A. Blumenthal; Hilary P. Grocott; Daniel T. Laskowitz; Roger Jones; Daniel B. Mark; Mark F. Newman
104 or
Anesthesiology | 2010
David L. McDonagh; Joseph P. Mathew; Willam D. White; Barbara Phillips-Bute; Daniel T. Laskowitz; Mihai V. Podgoreanu; Mark F. Newman
0.51, and
Gastroenterology | 1997
Dawn Provenzale; Mary Shearin; Barbara Phillips-Bute; Douglas A. Drossman; Zhiming Li; Wolfgang Tillinger; Colleen M. Schmitt; R. Randall Bollinger; Mark J. Koruda
164 or
Critical Care Medicine | 2005
J. Andrew McKee; Randall P. Brewer; Gary E. Macy; Barbara Phillips-Bute; Kurt A. Campbell; Cecil O. Borel; James D. Reynolds; David S. Warner
51.20, respectively (P = 0.001, active treatment groups vs. placebo). The use of a prophylactic antiemetic agent significantly increased patient satisfaction (P < 0.05). Personnel costs in managing PONV and unexpected hospital admission constitute major cost components in our analysis. Exclusion of nursing labor costs from the calculation did not alter the overall conclusions regarding the relative costs of antiemetic therapy. Conclusion: The use of prophylactic antiemetic therapy in high-risk ambulatory surgical patients was more effective in preventing PONV and achieved greater patient satisfaction at a lower cost compared with placebo. The use of 1.25 mg droperidol intravenously was associated with greater effectiveness, lower costs, and similar patient satisfaction compared with 0.625 mg droperidol intravenously and 4 mg ondansetron intravenously.
Anesthesia & Analgesia | 2000
Maribel G. Gamoso; Barbara Phillips-Bute; Kevin P. Landolfo; Mark F. Newman; Mark Stafford-Smith
BACKGROUND Acute renal injury is a common serious complication of cardiac surgery. Moderate hemodilution is thought to reduce the risk of kidney injury but the current practice of extreme hemodilution (target hematocrit 22% to 24%) during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) has been linked to adverse outcomes after cardiac surgery. Therefore we tested the hypothesis that lowest hematocrit during CPB is independently associated with acute renal injury after cardiac surgery. METHODS Demographic, perioperative, and laboratory data were gathered for 1,404 primary elective coronary bypass surgery patients. Preoperative and daily postoperative creatinine values were measured until hospital discharge per institutional protocol. Stepwise multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to determine whether lowest hematocrit during CPB was independently associated with peak fractional change in creatinine (defined as the difference between the preoperative and peak postoperative creatinine represented as a percentage of the preoperative value). A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS Multivariable analyses including preoperative hematocrit and other perioperative variables revealed that lowest hematocrit during CPB demonstrated a significant interaction with body weight and was highly associated with peak fractional change in serum creatinine (parameter estimate [PE] = 4.5; p = 0.008) and also with highest postoperative creatinine value (PE = 0.06; p = 0.004). Although other renal risk factors were significant covariates in both models, TM50 (an index of hypotension during CPB) was notably absent. CONCLUSIONS These results add to concerns that current CPB management guidelines accepting extreme hemodilution may contribute to postoperative acute renal and other organ injury after cardiac surgery.