Comparison of analgesic effects of morphine, fentanyl, and remifentanil with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia after cardiac surgery

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the analgesic effects of remifentanil with 2 other opioid agents, morphine and fentanyl, after cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, and double-blinded study. SETTINGS: This study was performed at Uludag University hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-five patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery were included in the study. INTERVENTIONS: Anesthesia was standardized. Cases were randomized into 3 groups consisting of 25 patients in each. Groups M, F, and R were given morphine HCl (1 mg/mL) with an infusion rate of 0.3 mg/h and 1-mg bolus doses; fentanyl (50 microg/mL) with an infusion rate of 1 microg/kg/h and 10-microg bolus; and, remifentanil (50 microg/mL) with an infusion rate of 0.05 microg/kg/min and 0.5-microg/kg bolus, respectively. Continuous infusion was started immediately after the completion of the surgery. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Pain was assessed by using a visual analog scale (0-10), and sedation was assessed with the Ramsey sedation score (1-6) 30 minutes, 1, 2, 4, 12, and 24 hours after extubation. The number of boluses and demands, time to extubation, and side effects were analyzed. Visual analog scale, sedation scores, and mean extubation times were similar in all groups. Total number of boluses and demands were statistically more in the remifentanil group. Regarding the side effects, nausea and vomiting was higher in group M (p < 0.05), whereas itching was prominent in group F (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the different durations of these 3 opioid agents, the infusion dose of remifentanil was as effective as morphine and fentanyl after OPCAB surgery with fewer side effects.     

Remifentanil-propofol versus sufentanil-propofol anaesthesia for supratentorial craniotomy: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Remifentanil has unique pharmacokinetics that might allow faster recovery after neurosurgery. We investigated the effects of a propofol/sufentanil versus a remifentanil/propofol regimen on the primary end-point tracheal extubation time. METHODS: In the Neurosurgery Department of a University Hospital, 36 patients awaiting craniotomy for supratentorial tumour resection were randomly assigned to one of two study groups. In the sufentanil/propofol group, anaesthesia was induced with 0.5 microg kg(-1) sufentanil and 1-2 mg kg(-1) propofol. Propofol infusion and boluses of sufentanil were administered for maintenance. In the remifentanil/propofol group, anaesthesia was started with an infusion of remifentanil (0.2-0.35 microg kg(-1) min(-1)) and a bolus of propofol (1.5-2 mg kg(-1)). Patients received a propofol infusion and a remifentanil infusion for maintenance of anaesthesia. Recovery times were taken from cessation of the propofol infusion. In addition, data about self-reported nausea and vomiting, pain and analgesic requirements were collected. RESULTS: Patients in the remifentanil/propofol group were extubated earlier (mean times 6.4 (+/- SD 4.7) versus 14.3 (+/- 9.2) min; P = 0.003). The two groups were similar with respect to postoperative nausea and vomiting, and patient-reported pain scores. Fifty per cent of the remifentanil/propofol patients and 88% of the sufentanil/propofol patients required no analgesics within 1 h after operation (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The remifentanil/propofol regimen provided quicker recovery. The two regimens were similar in terms of postoperative nausea and vomiting and patient-reported pain scores, but patients in the remifentanil/ propofol group required more analgesics within 1 h postoperatively.     

Cardiothoracic Anesthesia, Respiration and Airway

PURPOSE: This study was designed to examine the efficacy of low-dose intrathecal morphine (ITM) on extubation times and pain control after cardiac surgery. METHODS: 43 patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, double-blind placebo controlled trial. Patients were given a pre-induction dose of ITM (6 microg x kg(-1) per ideal body weight in 5 mL normal saline, group ITM) or 5 mL of intrathecal normal saline (group ITS). Anesthesia was induced with thiopental (3 mg x kg(-1)), sufentanil, midazolam and rocuronium. The total allowable doses of sufentanil and midazolam for the entire case were limited to 0.5 microg x kg(-1) and 0.045 mg x kg(-1) respectively. Anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane before and during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), and with propofol after CPB. In the postanesthesia care unit, patients received nurse-administered morphine followed by patient-controlled analgesia morphine. Serial visual analogue scale pain scores, morphine use, mini-mental state examinations and pulmonary function tests were measured for 48 hr. Patient satisfaction questionnaires were completed at the time of discharge. RESULTS: Mean times to extubation from the application of dressings were short and did not differ between groups (ITM = 41.4 +/- 33.0 min, ITS = 39.2 +/- 37.1 min). During the first 24 hr postoperatively, the ITM group had improved pain control and a lower iv morphine requirement than the control group, both at rest and during deep breathing. Both forced expiratory volume in one second and forced vital capacity were improved in the ITM group. There were no differences in spinal-related side effects or in the overall complication rates. Patient satisfaction was high in both groups. CONCLUSION: Low-dose ITM for cardiac surgery did not delay early extubation, but it improved postoperative analgesia and pulmonary function.     

Fast-track cardiac anesthesia: a comparison of remifentanil plus intrathecal morphine with sufentanil in a desflurane-based anesthetic

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of an intravenous remifentanil infusion plus intrathecal morphine with intravenous sufentanil infusion with respect to intraoperative hemodynamic variables, extubation times, and recovery profiles when administered as part of a desflurane-based fast-track anesthetic regimen for cardiac surgery. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, nonblinded study. SETTING: University hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Forty patients undergoing elective primary coronary artery bypass graft, aortic valve replacement, or mitral valve replacement surgery. INTERVENTIONS: After a standardized anesthetic induction, anesthesia was maintained with a remifentanil infusion, 0.1 microg/kg/min, and desflurane, 3% to 10%, inspired (group I, n = 20) or a sufentanil infusion, 0.3 microg/kg/h, and desflurane, 3% to 10%, inspired (group II, n = 20). Patients receiving remifentanil were administered intrathecal morphine, 8 microg/ kg, for postoperative analgesia. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Both anesthetic regimens provided comparable intraoperative hemodynamic stability and similar recovery profiles, with extubation times of 5.1 +/- 4.3 hours (group I) and 5.8 +/- 6.7 hours (group II). CONCLUSIONS: Use of remifentanil in combination with intrathecal morphine did not facilitate earlier tracheal extubation or improve intraoperative hemodynamic stability compared with sufentanil alone for fast-track cardiac anesthesia.     

Remifentanil versus morphine analgesia and sedation for mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a randomized double blind study

BACKGROUND: The rapid onset and offset of action of remifentanil could make it quickly adjustable to the required level of sedation in critically ill patients. The authors hypothesized that the efficacy of a remifentanil-based regimen was greater than that of a morphine-based regimen. METHODS: Forty intent-to-treat patients were randomly allocated to receive a blinded infusion of either remifentanil 0.15 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) or morphine 0.75 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1). The opioid infusion was titrated, in the first intent, to achieve optimal sedation defined as Sedation Agitation scale of 4. A midazolam open-label infusion was started if additional sedation was required. RESULTS: The mean percentage hours of optimal sedation was significantly longer in the remifentanil group (78.3 +/- 6.2) than in the morphine group (66.5 +/- 8.5). This was achieved with less frequent infusion rate adjustments (0.34 +/- 0.25 changes/h) than in the morphine group (0.42 +/- 0.22 changes/h). The mean duration of mechanical ventilation and extubation time were significantly longer in the morphine group (18.1 +/- 3.4 h, 73 +/- 7 min) than in the remifentanil group (14.1 +/- 2.8 h, 17 +/- 6 min), respectively. Remifentanil mean infusion rate was 0.13 +/- 0.03 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1), whereas morphine mean infusion rate was 0.68 +/- 0.28 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1). More subjects in the morphine group (9 of 20) than in the remifentanil group (6 of 20) required midazolam. The incidence of adverse events was low and comparable across the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: A remifentanil-based regimen was more effective in the provision of optimal analgesia-sedation than a standard morphine-based regimen. The remifentanil-based regimen allowed a more rapid emergence from sedation and facilitated earlier extubation.     

A combination of intrathecal morphine and remifentanil anesthesia for fast-track cardiac anesthesia and surgery

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the combined remifentanil and intrathecal morphine (RITM) anesthetic technique facilitates early extubation in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Referral center for cardiothoracic surgery at a university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (n = 24) undergoing first-time elective CABG surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Two groups represented RITM (n = 12) and fentanyl-based (controls, n = 12) anesthesia. Premedication was standardized to temazepam, 0.4 mg/kg, and anesthesia was induced with etomidate, 0.3 mg/kg, in both groups. The RITM group received remifentanil, 1 microg/kg bolus followed by 0.25 to 1 microg/kg/min infusion, and intrathecal morphine, 2 mg. The control group received fentanyl, 12 microg/kg in 3 divided doses. Anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane and pancuronium in both groups. After completion of surgery, the remifentanil infusion was stopped. Complete reversal of muscle relaxation was ensured with a nerve stimulator, and a propofol infusion, 0.5 to 3 mg/kg/h, was started in both groups. All patients were transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) to receive standardized postoperative care. Intensivists and ICU nurses were blinded to the group assignment. Propofol infusion was stopped, and the tracheal extubation was accomplished when extubation criteria were fulfilled. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Both groups were similar with respect to demographic data and surgical characteristics. Extubation times were 156 +/- 82 minutes and 258 +/- 91 minutes in the RITM and control groups (p = 0.012). Patients in the RITM group exhibited lower visual analog scale pain scores during the first 2 hours after extubation (p < 0.04). Morphine requirements during the 24 hours after extubation were 2.5 +/- 3 mg in the RITM group and 16 +/- 11 mg in the control group (p = 0.0018). Sedation scores were lower in the RITM group during the first 3 hours after extubation (p < 0.03). Pulmonary function tests as assessed by spirometry were better in the RITM group at 6 and 12 hours after extubation (p < 0.04). There were no significant differences in PaO(2) and PaCO(2) after extubation between the 2 groups. None of the patients had episodes of apnea during the immediate 24-hour postextubation period. Two patients from the RITM group required reintubation on the second and sixth postoperative days. There were no differences in ICU and hospital length of stay between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the RITM technique provided earlier tracheal extubation, decreased level of sedation, excellent analgesia, and improved spirometry in the early postoperative period. The impact of RITM on ICU and hospital length of stay and potential cost benefits require further evaluation.     

Continuous infusion of remifentanil and target-controlled infusion of propofol for patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a new approach for scheduled early extubation

OBJECTIVE: To assess hemodynamic stability, postoperative pain management, and the control and timing of early extubation of a total intravenous anesthetic technique using propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) and remifentanil in cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: University hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty patients scheduled for elective cardiac surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Premedication consisted of oral midazolam, 0.1 mg/kg. Anesthesia was induced with propofol TCI at a target concentration of 1.5 to 2 microg/mL; remifentanil, 1 microg/kg; and rocuronium. Anesthesia was maintained with propofol at the same target concentration and remifentanil titrated between 0.25 and 1 microg/kg/min. Thirty minutes before the end of surgery, a 0.1-mg/kg bolus of morphine was administered intravenously. Postoperative sedation was achieved by maintaining the propofol infusion until the patient was deemed ready for extubation. Postoperative pain relief was evaluated using a visual analog scale. The intervals between arrival in the intensive care unit, spontaneous ventilation, and extubation were recorded. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Included in this study were 36 men and 14 women (American Society of Anesthesiologist = III; New York Heart Association = II) scheduled for cardiac surgery. All patients remained hemodynamically stable throughout the perioperative period. Thirty-seven patients were successfully extubated during the first 4 postoperative hours. Spontaneous breathing was achieved at a mean interval of 15+/-5 minutes after propofol discontinuation. The mean interval to extubation was 163+/-45 minutes after arrival in the intensive care unit. Extubation was performed 48+/-12 minutes after patients were considered ready to awaken. During spontaneous ventilation, 36 patients received additional boluses of morphine (mean, 2.5+/-1 mg). Subsequently, all patients achieved a visual analog scale less than 40 mm. CONCLUSION: The combination of remifentanil and propofol TCI resulted in hemodynamic stability and good postoperative analgesia. This technique allows physicians to schedule the time of extubation in patients undergoing cardiac anesthesia.     

Alfentanil and sufentanil in fast-track anesthesia for coronary artery bypass graft surgery

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate alfentanil, sufentanil, and the combination of both opioids in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study. SETTING: University hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery (n = 195), randomly assigned to 3 groups of 65 each. INTERVENTIONS: Patients in group A received alfentanil, induction (15 microg/kg) and maintenance (15 microg/kg/hr); patients in group S received sufentanil, induction (1 microg/kg) and maintenance (1 microg/kg/h); and patients in group AS received alfentanil and sufentanil, induction with alfentanil (15 microg/kg) and maintenance with sufentanil (1 microg/kg/hr). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Hemodynamic data showed a reduction of all parameters at induction in the 3 groups (p < 0.05). Cardiac index decreased at induction in all groups (p < 0.05) but increased in groups S and AS toward baseline values at the end of surgery. The intubation time and length of stay in the intensive care unit were less in group AS (2.3 +/- 1.2 hours; p < 0.001 and 20 +/- 8 hours; p < 0.05), than in groups A (4.2 +/- 1.7 hours and 28 +/- 13 hours) and S (3.1 +/- 1.1 hours; p < 0.05 and 26 +/- 12 hours). Length of hospital stay and patients' outcome were similar in the 3 groups. CONCLUSION: Although the differences among groups regarding extubation time, intensive care unit length of stay, and some hemodynamic data were statistically significant, the differences were clinically small. All 3 anesthetic protocols were shown to be safe and appropriate for patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery and early postoperative tracheal extubation.     

Fast-track coronary artery bypass grafting surgery under general anesthesia with remifentanil and spinal analgesia with morphine and clonidine

OBJECTIVE: Effective postoperative analgesia is a critical part of fast-track cardiac surgery. This study compared the postoperative analgesic effect of fast-track anesthesia with remifentanil and spinal morphine and clonidine with that of sufentanil anesthesia followed by patient-controlled administration of intravenous morphine. DESIGN: Prospective, blinded, randomized study. SETTING: Single private institution. PARTICIPANTS: Forty patients selected for coronary artery bypass graft surgery allocated randomly into 2 groups. INTERVENTIONS: General anesthesia was performed with etomidate, isoflurane, cisatracurium, and either remifentanil (0.10-0.25 microg/kg/min) or sufentanil (up to 3.5 microg/kg). In the remifentanil group, patients received spinal morphine (4 microg/kg) and clonidine (1 microg/kg) before induction. Postoperatively, patients in both groups were connected to an intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) morphine pump that delivered a 1-g bolus with a 7-minute lockout interval. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were evaluated for pain on a visual analog scale (VAS), at rest and on deep breathing, and for intravenous PCA morphine consumption during 24 hours. The intravenous PCA morphine 24-hour cumulative dose was lower in the fast-track than in the control group (15.8+/-12.6 v 32.7+/-22.3 mg, p<0.05). Before extubation, VAS scores were higher in the fast-track group, but after they were lower both at rest and during deep breathing. Extubation delay was shorter in the fast-track group (156.5+/-46.1 v 272+/-116.4 minutes, p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The combination of anesthesia with remifentanil and spinal analgesia with morphine and clonidine produces effective analgesia after coronary artery surgery and a rapid extubation time.     

Immediate postoperative pain management in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery after remifentanil-based anesthesia: sufentanil vs tramadol

AIM: The transition from intraoperative analgesia to postoperative analgesia must be planned carefully after remifentanil-based anesthesia, due to the short duration of action of remifentanil. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of 2 transition strategies using sufentanil or tramadol for early postoperative pain relief in patients who had major abdominal surgery under general anesthesia with remifentanil/sevoflurane. METHODS: Sixty patients participated in this double-blind, prospective study and were randomly assigned to either sufentanil (S) group or tramadol (T) group. Twenty minutes before the end of surgery the patients received either a bolus of 0.15 microg kg(-1) sufentanil (group S) or tramadol 100 mg (group T). Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) and rate pressure product (RPP=systolic arterial pressure (SAP)xHR), analgesia by a verbal rating score (VRS) and sedation by a sedation score (SS) were evaluated at emergence from anesthesia. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference in HR between the 2 groups was recorded at extubation (78+/-13 in group S vs 86+/-24 in group T). A significant decrease of RPP values at extubation and 5 minutes later were found in group S in comparison with group T. VRS values were significantly lower in sufentanil group at 5 and 10 minutes after awakening. CONCLUSIONS: Sufentanil provided more effective transition analgesia in comparison with tramadol. The effects of remifentanil dissipated rapidly and analgesia with major opioids was required. A bolus dose of sufentanil 0.15 microg kg(-1) was efficacious in controlling the hemodynamic parameters at awakening from anesthesia. The lower HR values and, consequently the lower RPP values are of utmost importance especially in the aged cardiovascular risk patient.     

Effect of subarachnoid morphine administration on extubation time after coronary artery bypass graft surgery

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of 2 low doses of intrathecal morphine on extubation time and on postoperative analgesic requirements after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Tertiary-care university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty adult patients scheduled for elective primary CABG surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive placebo, 250 microg, or 500 microg intrathecal morphine, preoperatively. Intraoperative fentanyl and midazolam were limited to 15 microg/kg and 20 microg/kg intravenously. Patients were extubated in the intensive care unit by a blinded observer using predefined extubation criteria. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Time to extubation and postoperative requirements for morphine, midazolam, nitroglycerin, and sodium nitroprusside were recorded by a blinded observer. Extubation times were 441 +/- 207 minutes versus 325 +/- 188 minutes versus 409 +/- 245 minutes for the placebo, 250-microg, and 500-microg groups (p = 0.27). Postoperative morphine requirements in the 250-microg and 500-microg groups were 13.6 +/- 7.8 mg and 11.7 +/- 7.4 mg, compared with 21.3 +/- 6.2 mg in the placebo group (p = 0.001). There were no differences among the study groups with regard to postoperative midazolam, nitroglycerin, and sodium nitroprusside requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Despite decreased postoperative morphine requirements, intrathecal morphine administration did not have a clinically relevant effect on extubation time after CABG surgery. This study suggests that 250 microg is the optimal dose of intrathecal morphine to provide significant postoperative analgesia without delaying tracheal extubation.     

Use of the NMDA antagonist magnesium sulfate during monitored anesthesia care for shockwave lithotripsy

PURPOSE: To assess whether intravenous magnesium sulfate infusion affects analgesic requirements during monitored anesthesia care (MAC) for shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty patients in ASA class I or II undergoing SWL with MAC were randomized into two groups. Induction of MAC was produced by bolus doses of midazolam 0.03 mg/kg(-1) and fentanyl 0.5 microg/kg(-1) followed by intravenous infusion of midazolam 0.015 to 0.06 mg/kg(-1)/hr(-1) with fentanyl supplementation 0.2 microg/kg(-1). In addition, group I patients received magnesium sulfate 30 mg/kg(-1) intravenously as a bolus dose followed by a continuous infusion of 10 mg/kg(-1) /hr(-1) beginning 15 minutes before induction of sedation. The midazolam infusion rate and additional fentanyl doses were adjusted by verbal analog scale (VAS) measurements, observer assessment sedation score (OAA/S), and achieving a target bispectral index (BIS) in a range of 70 to 90. At the end of SWL, the total midazolam and total fentanyl consumptions were recorded, and the serum magnesium concentration was measured. RESULTS: Magnesium caused significant decreases in the total consumption of midazolam (P = 0.001) and fentanyl (P = 0.001). The VAS values at the 15th, 20th, and 25th minute in group I were significantly lower than in group II. In group I, hemodynamic and arterial oxygen parameters were better than in group II. CONCLUSION: A magnesium bolus and infusion can be utilized to reduce analgesic requirements under MAC during SWL.     

Remifentanil zur Analgosedierung von Intensivpatienten Klinische Anwendung und erste Erfahrungen

OBJECTIVES: It was the aim of this investigation to report our initial clinical experience on the use of remifentanil in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Additionally, we hypothesized that even under intensive care conditions remifentanil might facilitate a temporally predictable and "programmed" tracheal extubation. METHODS: Remifentanil was used for analgesia and sedation of mechanically ventilated patients who were admitted to the ICU following major noncardiac surgery or who had to be ventilated due to respiratory failure. The infusion was started with 0.15 microg/kg/min and then adapted in steps of 0.05 microg/kg/min according to clinical needs. After admission to the ICU the depth of sedation was adjusted to a Ramsay score level of 4 (sleeping patient, immediately arousable) and then targeted at a level of 2-3 (patient awake, co-operative and tranquil or responding to command only). In case of sufficient pain relief but inadequate sedation patients could receive bolus doses of midazolam (1-3 mg) or an infusion of clonidine (0.5 microg/kg/h), the latter especially in case of shivering or hypertension. Prior to extubation bolus doses of piritramide (3-5 mg) and a non-opioid analgesic (metamizol or propacetamol) could be used for postoperative pain relief. Data are presented as mean+/-SD. RESULTS: A total of 46 patients were studied, aged 62.8+/-15.4 yr with a mean APACHE II score of 19.2 points. The duration of remifentanil infusion ranged up to 78 h with a mean of 9. 8 h. The mean infusion rate was 0.14+/-0.08 microg/kg/min during ongoing analgesia and sedation and 0.10+/-0.08 microg/kg/min immediately before its discontinuance. Additional sedatives were necessary in 63% of all patients. Emergence was rapid in the majority of cases: 67% of all patients could safely be extubated within 15 min after termination of remifentanil, and a total of 87% were extubated within 45 min. A development of tolerance was not observed during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Remifentanil appeared to be suitable for analgesia and sedation of critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation: Even under intensive care conditions recovery was rapid in the majority of cases, and in two thirds of all patients tracheal extubation was temporally predictable and could be timed within 15 min. These results are best explained by the metabolism and offset of action of remifentanil obviously unaffected in the ICU area. However, for fast emergence the cautious use of additional sedatives is crucial.     

Pilot study on the effect of tourniquet use on sufentanil pharmacokinetics

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To test our hypothesis that sequestration of sufentanil can occur during surgery when a pneumatic tourniquet is used. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study. SETTING: Operating room and recovery room of a university hospital. PATIENTS: 16 ASA physical status I and II patients scheduled for orthopedic surgery with pneumatic tourniquet use. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to three groups. Sufentanil was given intravenously at 0.5 microg kg(-1) bolus at the same time that a constant infusion was started at 0.5 microg kg h(-1). In Group 1, continuous infusion of sufentanil was stopped when the tourniquet was released (n = 6). In Group 2, continuous infusion of sufentanil was stopped 15 minutes after tourniquet release (n = 6). In Group 3, as a control group, the sufentanil bolus was started after tourniquet inflation (n = 4). MEASUREMENTS: Plasma sufentanil concentrations were determined by radioimmunoassay. To compare pharmacokinetic results, a simulation of the sufentanil plasma concentrations was achieved. MAIN RESULTS: Exsanguination and inflation of the pneumatic tourniquet had no significant effect on pharmacokinetic results. In 75% of patients, a significant increase in sufentanil plasma concentration occurred between 30 and 60 minutes after tourniquet deflation in all three groups, probably as a result of patient mobilization. One respiratory distress event occurred in a Group 2 patient following extubation at 55 minutes after the end of the sufentanil infusion. The rebound of sufentanil concentration was higher in Group 2; it may be due to a reduced effect of the restoring circulation in the ischemic leg by a prolonged infusion after tourniquet deflation. CONCLUSIONS: Using a pneumatic tourniquet induces transient changes in the pharmacokinetics of sufentanil. These changes may have clinical relevance during the first hour after tourniquet release.     

Fast-track cardiac anesthesia: use of remifentanil combined with intrathecal morphine as an alternative to sufentanil during desflurane anesthesia

The purpose of this cardiac fast-track study was to evaluate the use of remifentanil (R) combined with intrathecal (IT) morphine as an alternative to sufentanil (S) during desflurane anesthesia with respect to postoperative pain control. Prior to entering the operating room, patients in the R group (n = 20) received morphine, 8 microg/kg IT. Anesthesia was induced using a standardized anesthetic technique in all patients. In the R group, anesthesia was maintained with R, 0.1 microg. kg(-1). min(-1) in combination with desflurane 3-10%. In the S group (n = 20), patients received S 0.3 microg. kg(-1). h(-1) and desflurane 3-10%. There were no differences between the two groups with respect to time from arrival in the intensive care unit to tracheal extubation (5.1 +/- 4.3 h vs 5.8 +/- 6.7 h for R and S groups, respectively). After extubation, patients in the R group had significantly lower visual analog pain scores, reduced patient-controlled analgesic requirements, and greater satisfaction with their perioperative pain management, compared with patients in the S group. We conclude that R combined with IT morphine provided superior pain control after cardiac surgery compared with a S-based general anesthetic technique. Implications: As part of a cardiac fast-tracking program involving desflurane anesthesia, the use of intrathecal morphine in combination with a remifentanil infusion provided improved postoperative pain control, compared with IV sufentanil alone.     

Ropivacaine 0.15% plus sufentanil 0.5 microg/mL and ropivacaine 0.10% plus sufentanil 0.5 microg/mL are equivalent for patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor

We compared the administration of 0.15% ropivacaine plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil with that of 0.10% ropivacaine plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil for labor analgesia with patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) to determine whether a decreased concentration of ropivacaine could produce equally effective analgesia. One-hundred-thirty healthy pregnant women at term were randomized in a double-blinded fashion. The PCEA settings were as follows: 12-mL initial bolus, 5-mL bolus dose, 5-min lockout interval, and 10 mL/h basal infusion. Patient demographics and labor characteristics were comparable in both groups. No differences were observed for pain scores, maternal satisfaction, volume of anesthetic solution administered, number of boluses requested and delivered, need for supplemental boluses, mode of delivery, motor block, side effects, or Apgar scores. Patients in the 0.10% ropivacaine group used significantly less drug than those in the 0.15% group (mean, 57 mg; 95% confidence interval, 50.5-63.5 mg; versus mean, 88.0 mg; 95% confidence interval, 74.4-93.3 mg, respectively; P < 0.0001). Ropivacaine 0.10% plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil administered via PCEA for labor analgesia is equally effective as ropivacaine 0.15% plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil, with a 30% local anesthetic-sparing effect and a 40% reduction in cost. However, this reduction in local anesthetic is not associated with a decrease in the incidence of motor block, side effects, or instrumental deliveries. IMPLICATIONS: Ropivacaine 0.10% plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil given via patient-controlled epidural anesthesia for labor analgesia is equally as effective as ropivacaine 0.15% plus 0.5 microg/mL of sufentanil, with a 30% local anesthetic-sparing effect and a 40% reduction in cost. This reduction in ropivacaine concentration is not associated with a decrease in the incidence of motor block, side effects, or instrumental deliveries.     

Bispectral index-guided anesthesia in patients undergoing aortocoronary bypass grafting

In this prospective, randomized study, we compared hemodynamics, oxygenation, possible intraoperative awareness, and costs in 62 patients undergoing first-time elective coronary artery bypass grafting at 2 different levels of anesthesia. Depth of anesthesia was assessed with bispectral index (BIS). All patients were anesthetized with sufentanil/midazolam. The dosage of sufentanil/midazolam was adjusted to achieve a BIS level of 45-55 in 32 patients (Group BIS 50), whereas in 30 patients a BIS level of 35-45 was intended (Group BIS 40). Data were obtained at six different time points before, during, and after surgery. All patients were asked about possible intraoperative awareness on the third postoperative day. There were no significant differences of any hemodynamic or oxygenation variables at any time between the two groups. BIS 40 patients received significantly (P < 0.05) more sufentanil (BIS 40, 888 +/- 211 microg; BIS 50, 514 +/- 99 microg) and midazolam (BIS 40, 22.4 +/- 5.6 mg; BIS 50, 16.6 +/- 3.7 mg) than BIS 50 patients. The reduction in anesthetic drugs used saved euro;13.78/US$12.54 per patient (P < 0.05) in Group BIS 50, but one BIS electrode caused additional costs of 19.95 Euros/18.15 US dollars. Time to extubation was not significantly prolonged in Group BIS 40 (BIS 40, 14.3 +/- 4.6 h; BIS 50, 11.8 +/- 3.8 h). There was no explicit memory during anesthesia in either group. BIS-guided reduction of anesthetic medication saved costs and did not increase the risk of intraoperative awareness. However, total costs were increased by monitoring BIS, because of the BIS electrodes.     

Remifentanil-Propofol- versus Fentanyl-Midazolam-Kombination bei intrakraniellen Eingriffen

INTRODUCTION: After neurosurgery patients often need to be sedated and ventilated in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, rapid postoperative recovery and neurological examination are particularly important for the early recognition of complications. In this retrospective study two different strategies of anaesthesia technique and ICU sedation (fentanyl-midazolam versus remifentanil-propofol) were compared. METHODS: Intraoperatively, patients received continuous infusions of either fentanyl (0.2-1.0 mg/h) and midazolam (2-10 mg/h) or remifentanil (0.2-0.5 microg/kg body weight/min) and propofol (3-6 mg/kg body weight/h). After arrival in the ICU fentanyl (0.03-0.2 mg/h) and midazolam (2-12 mg/h) or remifentanil (0.1-0.2 microg/kg body weight/min) and propofol (0.5-3 mg/kg body weight/h) were infused to reach a Ramsay score of 4. The times between termination of infusion and extubation and the length of stay in the ICU were examined. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients (n=30 each group) undergoing supratentorial brain tumour surgery were enrolled. The groups were comparable for age, weight, ASA status (American Society of Anesthesiologists) and duration of drug administration (remifentanil-propofol 528+/-382 min versus fentanyl-midazolam 548+/-360 min). Extubation times were significantly shorter after remifentanil-propofol (47 min) than after fentanyl-midazolam (481 min), and the length of stay in the ICU was also significantly reduced (1.8 days versus 3.7 days). As a result of prolonged unconsciousness and impaired neurological assessability, a brain CT scan was necessary in 3 patients after fentanyl-midazolam to exclude neurosurgical complications. CONCLUSION: This retrospective study demonstrates that remifentanil-propofol anaesthesia and ICU sedation are superior to the combination of fentanyl and midazolam in terms of ventilation time and length of ICU stay. Moreover, the use of fentanyl-midazolam may lead to unnecessary CT scans.     

Remifentanil administration during monitored anesthesia care: are intermittent boluses an effective alternative to a continuous infusion?

This randomized, double-blind study was designed to evaluate the analgesic effectiveness and respiratory stability of remifentanil when administered as intermittent bolus injections, a variable-rate infusion, or a combination of a constant basal infusion supplemented with intermittent boluses during monitored anesthesia care (MAC). Forty-five patients undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) procedures were randomly assigned to one of the three modes of remifentanil administration. All patients received midazolam 2 mg i.v., followed by a propofol infusion at 50 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1). Two minutes before administering a series of test shock waves: Group I received a remifentanil infusion of 0.1 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1), and a saline bolus (5 mL); Group II received a saline infusion and a remifentanil bolus (25 microg in 5 mL); and Group III received a remifentanil infusion of 0.05 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1), and a remifentanil bolus (12.5 microg in 5 mL). The average pain intensity was scored on an 11-point scale, with 0 = no pain to 10 = severe pain. During the ESWL procedure, pain was treated by increasing the study drug infusion rate by 25%-50% and administering 5-mL bolus injections of the study medication in Groups I (saline) and II (remifentanil 25 microg). In Group III, intermittent 5-mL boluses (remifentanil 12.5 microg) were administered as needed. Patients in Groups II and III reported lower pain scores in response to the test shocks. Significantly more remifentanil was administered in Group I (379 +/- 207 microg) than in Group II (201 +/- 136 microg). However, more interventions were required for the treatment of intraoperative pain in the intermittent bolus group (Group II). When remifentanil is administered as the analgesic component of a MAC technique, these data support the use of intermittent bolus doses (12.5-25 microg) alone or in combination with a basal infusion (0.05 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) as alternatives to a variable-rate continuous infusion. IMPLICATIONS: In this study, three different modes of remifentanil administration were used during monitored anesthesia care for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy procedures. These results suggest that using intermittent bolus injections of remifentanil (25 microg) or a continuous infusion (0.05 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) supplemented with intermittent bolus (12.5 microg) injections may be more effective than a variable-rate infusion of remifentanil during propofol sedation.     

A multicentre trial comparing different concentrations of ropivacaine plus sufentanil with bupivacaine plus sufentanil for patient-controlled epidural analgesia in labour

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal concentration of ropivacaine for bolus-only patient-controlled epidural labour analgesia, three different doses of ropivacaine were evaluated in comparison with bupivacaine in a double-blinded multicentre study. METHODS: Four hundred-and-fifty labouring parturients at term in three different academic institutions were randomized to four groups receiving bupivacaine 0.125% with sufentanil 0.75 microg mL(-1), ropivacaine 0.125% or 0.175% with sufentanil 0.75 microg mL(-1), or ropivacaine 0.2%. After an initial bolus of 10 mL of the study solution, and once visual analogue scores (VAS) were below 30 mm, patient-controlled epidural analgesia was initiated with a bolus of 4 mL, a lockout interval of 15 min and without a background infusion. Variables studied were the quality of analgesia, incidence of side-effects, the degree of motor blockade, and the mode of delivery. RESULTS: Bupivacaine 0.125% and ropivacaine 0.125% with sufentanil proved equally effective in providing labour analgesia without a difference in local anaesthetic consumption (48.6 +/- 23 mg bupivacaine vs. 52.1 +/- 38 mg ropivacaine), motor blockade or mode of delivery. Ropivacaine 0.175% plus sufentanil enhanced the quality of analgesia of the initial loading dose, whereas ropivacaine 0.2% without sufentanil increased the consumption of local anaesthetics (80.2 +/- 34 mg; P < 0.05) and the degree of motor blockade. CONCLUSION: Despite recent studies indicating that bupivacaine and ropivacaine may not be equipotent, both local anaesthetics provided equi-effective analgesia at equal doses without a difference in side-effects.