A comparison of remifentanil and fentanyl in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND AND AIM: We investigated the haemodynamic stability and emergence characteristics of isoflurane/nitrous oxide anaesthesia supplemented with remifentanil or fentanyl in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy. METHODS: Anaesthesia was induced with propofol (1-2 mg kg-1) and either remifentanil (0.5 microgram kg-1) or fentanyl (1 microgram kg-1), followed by an infusion of remifentanil (0.2 microgram kg-1 min-1) or fentanyl (2 micrograms kg-1 h-1). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups in haemodynamic variables, postoperative pain, nausea or vomiting. After induction there was a significant decrease in mean arterial pressure for both groups (P < 0.001) and a decrease in heart rate (P = 0.001) in the remifentanil group. In both groups these haemodynamic changes continued during maintenance of anaesthesia (P < 0.05). The time to eye opening after surgery was significantly shorter with remifentanil compared with fentanyl (6.62 +/- 3.89 vs. 18.0 +/- 15.18 min, P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Remifentanil appears to be a comparable opioid to fentanyl when supplementing isoflurane/nitrous oxide anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy.     

Narcotrend monitoring allows faster emergence and a reduction of drug consumption in propofol-remifentanil anesthesia

BACKGROUND: The Narcotrend is a new electroencephalographic monitor designed to measure depth of anesthesia, based on a six-letter classification from A (awake) to F (increasing burst suppression) including 14 substages. This study was designed to investigate the impact of Narcotrend monitoring on recovery times and propofol consumption in comparison to Bispectral Index (BIS) monitoring or standard anesthetic practice. METHODS: With institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 120 adult patients scheduled to undergo minor orthopedic surgery were randomized to receive a propofol-remifentanil anesthetic controlled by Narcotrend, by BIS(R), or solely by clinical parameters. Anesthesia was induced with 0.4 micro x kg-1 x min-1 remifentanil and a propofol target-controlled infusion at 3.5 microg/ml. After intubation, remifentanil was reduced to 0.2 micro x kg-1 x min-1, whereas the propofol infusion was adjusted according to clinical parameters or to the following target values: during maintenance to D(0) (Narcotrend) or 50 (BIS); 15 min before the end of surgery to C(1) (Narcotrend) or 60 (BIS). Recovery times were recorded by a blinded investigator, and average normalized propofol consumption was calculated from induction and maintenance doses. RESULTS: The groups were comparable for demographic data, duration of anesthesia, and mean remifentanil dosages. Compared with standard practice, patients with Narcotrend or BIS monitoring needed significantly less propofol (standard practice, 6.8 +/- 1.2 mg x kg-1 x h-1 vs. Narcotrend, 4.5 +/- 1.1 mg x kg-1 x h-1 or BIS(R), 4.8 +/- 1.0 mg x kg-1 x h-1; P < 0.001), opened their eyes earlier (9.3 +/- 5.2 vs. 3.4 +/- 2.2 or 3.5 +/- 2.9 min), and were extubated sooner (9.7 +/- 5.3 vs. 3.7 +/- 2.2 or 4.1 +/- 2.9 min). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that Narcotrend and BIS monitoring are equally effective to facilitate a significant reduction of recovery times and propofol consumption when used for guidance of propofol titration during a propofol-remifentanil anesthetic.     

Narcotrend Monitoring Allows Faster Emergence and a Reduction of Drug Consumption in Propofol-Remifentanil Anesthesia

Background: The Narcotrend is a new electroencephalographic monitor designed to measure depth of anesthesia, based on a six-letter classification from A (awake) to F (increasing burst suppression) including 14 substages. This study was designed to investigate the impact of Narcotrend monitoring on recovery times and propofol consumption in comparison to Bispectral Index(R) (BIS(R)) monitoring or standard anesthetic practice.

Methods: With institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 120 adult patients scheduled to undergo minor orthopedic surgery were randomized to receive a propofol-remifentanil anesthetic controlled by Narcotrend, by BIS(R), or solely by clinical parameters. Anesthesia was induced with 0.4 [mu]g [middle dot] kg-1 [middle dot] min-1 remifentanil and a propofol target-controlled infusion at 3.5 [mu]g/ml. After intubation, remifentanil was reduced to 0.2 [mu]g [middle dot] kg-1 [middle dot] min-1, whereas the propofol infusion was adjusted according to clinical parameters or to the following target values: during maintenance to D0 (Narcotrend) or 50 (BIS(R)); 15 min before the end of surgery to C1 (Narcotrend) or 60 (BIS(R)). Recovery times were recorded by a blinded investigator, and average normalized propofol consumption was calculated from induction and maintenance doses.

Results: The groups were comparable for demographic data, duration of anesthesia, and mean remifentanil dosages. Compared with standard practice, patients with Narcotrend or BIS(R) monitoring needed significantly less propofol (standard practice, 6.8 +/- 1.2 mg [middle dot] kg-1 [middle dot] h-1vs. Narcotrend, 4.5 +/- 1.1 mg [middle dot] kg-1 [middle dot] h-1 or BIS(R), 4.8 +/- 1.0 mg [middle dot] kg-1 [middle dot] h-1;P < 0.001), opened their eyes earlier (9.3 +/- 5.2 vs. 3.4 +/- 2.2 or 3.5 +/- 2.9 min), and were extubated sooner (9.7 +/- 5.3 vs. 3.7 +/- 2.2 or 4.1 +/- 2.9 min).     

Comparison of remifentanil in combination with isoflurane or propofol for short-stay surgical procedures

There are few data in the literature that describe the use of remifentanil when administered as a component of an inhalation or total i.v. anaesthetic (TIVA) technique. We studied 251 male and female patients, aged 18-75 years, ASA I-II, undergoing inguinal hernia repair, arthroscopic knee surgery or varicose vein surgery of at least 30 min duration without premedication. Patients were randomized to receive a remifentanil loading dose of 1.0 microgram kg-1 followed by a continuous infusion of 0.5 microgram kg-1 min-1 in combination with isoflurane (end-tidal concentration 0.6%), (Group I, n = 115) or propofol (initial infusion rate 9 mg kg-1 h-1 reduced to 6 mg kg-1 h-1 after 10 min), (Group P, n = 118). The remifentanil infusion rate was reduced by 50%, 5 min after tracheal intubation. Intraoperative stresses were treated with a remifentanil bolus (1 microgram kg-1) followed by an increase in the remifentanil infusion rate. At the insertion of the last suture, the remifentanil infusion and concomitant anaesthetic were switched off simultaneously. Times to spontaneous respiration, adequate respiration and tracheal extubation were significantly shorter in group I compared with group P (6.4 min vs 7.6 min, P < 0.01; 7.6 min vs 9.3, P < 0.003; 7.8 min vs 9.5 min, P < 0.015). Overall mean systolic blood pressures during surgery were greater in group P compared with group I (P < 0.05) but the absolute differences were clinically insignificant (4-5 mm Hg).      

Remifentanil in combination with propofol for spontaneous ventilation anaesthesia

We have investigated the effect of four doses of remifentanil on the incidence of respiratory depression and somatic response at incision. Remifentanil was administered as a loading dose of 0.125, 0.25, 0.375 or 0.5 microgram kg-1 and at a maintenance infusion rate of 0.025, 0.05, 0.075 or 0.1 microgram kg-1 min-1, respectively, with an infusion of propofol 6 mg kg-1 h-1. Responses occurred in 88% of patients with remifentanil 0.025 microgram kg-1 min-1 compared with 30-40% in the other groups. Respiratory depression after incision increased from 6% with remifentanil 0.025 microgram kg-1 min-1 to 73% with 0.1 microgram kg-1 min-1. Increases in propofol infusion rate to 7.2-8.4 mg kg-1 h-1 produced adequate maintenance of anaesthesia. Reductions in remifentanil doses to 0.025-0.05 microgram kg-1 min-1 resulted in adequate respiration at the end of surgery in 88% of patients. Maintenance infusions of the two drugs for spontaneous ventilation are likely to be in these ranges. However, the ideal loading doses and infusion rates for induction remain to be established.      

Remifentanil vs. fentanyl during interventional rigid bronchoscopy under general anaesthesia and spontaneous assisted ventilation.

The treatment of tracheo-bronchial diseases with rigid bronchoscopy requires general anaesthesia without tracheal intubation. Spontaneous assisted ventilation is a safe modality of ventilation. In this study the use of remifentanil and fentanyl is compared during rigid bronchoscopy with spontaneous assisted ventilation. Ninety high-risk patients received fentanyl or remifentanil with propofol for general anaesthesia. During the maintenance fentanyl was delivered at 6.1 +/- 4.6 micrograms kg-1 h-1 and remifentanil at 0.15 +/- 0.07 microgram kg-1 min-1. The same degree of intra-operative respiratory acidosis with similar good operating conditions resulted in both groups. Patients treated with remifentanil recovered more quickly compared with those in the fentanyl group (3.8 +/- 2 vs. 10.4 +/- 9.2 min, P < 0.001). In conclusion, the use of remifentanil during rigid bronchoscopy under general anaesthesia with spontaneous assisted ventilation is safe and assures good operating conditions. Moreover, remifentanil permits a more rapid recovery than fentanyl. The dose of remifentanil is higher than previously described for spontaneously breathing patients.     

Total intravenous anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil for elective non-cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND: Remifentanil is a highly effective mu opioid agonist with predictable pharmacokinetics and a close concentration-effect relationship. Moreover, studies on anesthetic drugs interactions show that optimal propofol concentrations decrease more significantly with remifentanil as compared with other opioids and recovery appears to be much faster than when propofol is combined with other opioids combinations. This intervention study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of propofol combined with remifentanil in elective non cardiac inpatient surgery. METHODS: N. 405 patients undergoing intraperitoneal, head-neck, intrathoracic, major orthopaedics, breast and major vascular surgery received: remifentanil (1 microgram.kg-1 at induction; 0.50 microgram.kg-1.min-1 at laryngoscopy; 0.25 microgram.kg-1.min-1 at skin incision; 0.25-0.30 microgram.kg-1.min1 from skin incision to end of skin suture) and propofol (0.5-1 mg.kg-1 at induction; 5 mg.kg-1.h-1 at laryngoscopy; 5 mg.kg-1.h-1 at skin incision and 5 mg.kg1.h1 thereafter). Intraoperative end-points included somatic responses, tachycardia and hypertension to laryngoscopy and surgery. Incidence of intraoperative bradycardia, hypotension and muscle rigidity were also recorded. Postoperative end-points included Aldrete score > or = 9, pain immediately following emergence and PONV. RESULTS: Propofol-remifentanil combination effectively controlled responses to laryngoscopy and surgical stress. Drug related adverse events were transient bradycardia (< 50 bpm) and hypotension (SBP < or = 80 mmHg) respectively: at prelaryngoscopy 11.60-1.48% and at pre-skin incision 10.61-0.98%. N. 365 patients were discharged from PACU and the median time to first Aldrete score > or = 9 was 22.3 min. The most frequent postoperative event was shivering recorded in n. 46 patients (12%). Postoperative analgesic medication was requested by n. 16 patients (4.4%) and PONV was noted in n. 6 patients (1.6%). CONCLUSIONS: When combined with propofol, remifentanil effectively provided for profound analgesia during surgery, stable anesthetic conditions, simplicity of use and predictable recovery.     

An open, randomized comparison of alfentanil, remifentanil and alfentanil followed by remifentanil in anaesthesia for craniotomy

We studied 52 adults undergoing elective craniotomy, allocated randomly to one of three opioid treatments: alfentanil 50 micrograms kg-1 followed by 0.833 microgram kg-1 min-1 until dural closure (group Alf.); alfentanil 50 micrograms kg-1 followed by 0.833 microgram kg-1 min-1 for 2 h, then remifentanil 0.25 microgram kg-1 min-1 (group Alf.- Remi.); or remifentanil 1 microgram kg-1 followed by 0.5 microgram kg-1 min-1 reducing to 0.25 microgram kg-1 min-1 after craniotomy (group Remi.). Anaesthesia was maintained with infusion of propofol and 66% nitrous oxide in oxygen. Infusions of propofol and remifentanil were stopped at head bandaging. Group Remi. had the least intraoperative haemodynamic responses and group Alf. the most (P < 0.05). Times to tracheal extubation and obey commands were similar in all groups. In all patients in group Alf.-Remi. and group Remi., the trachea was extubated 27 min from the end of anaesthesia; three patients in group Alf. were slower to recover. Use of analgesia in the recovery room and time to transfer to the neurosurgical unit were similar in the three groups.      

A comparison of fentanyl and buprenorphine in total intravenous anesthesia using propofol during spinal surgery

A retrospective study was performed to compare the hemodynamic effect and postoperative pain relief of fentanyl (Group F, n = 11) and buprenorphine (Group B, n = 11) in total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) using propofol during spinal surgery. All patients were premedicated with midazolam (3-5 mg) i.m. Anesthesia was maintained with propofol infusion, and increments of fentanyl or single dose of buprenorphine with 40% oxygen in air. Total doses of fentanyl and buprenorphine were 7.6 +/- 1.0 micrograms.kg-1 and 2.0 +/- 0.4 micrograms.kg-1, respectively. Maintenance doses of propofol (Group F: 5.5 +/- 0.8 mg.kg-1.h-1, Group B: 5.9 +/- 1.1 mg.kg-1.h-1) and vecuronium were not significantly different. Mean arterial pressures from 2 hours after incision to the end of surgery were elevated significantly in Group F than in Group B. Recovery time (Group F 12.5 +/- 6.1 min vs Group B 11.8 +/- 6.1 min) and extubation time (Group F 19.5 +/- 10.3 min vs Group B 15.0 +/- 7.0 min) were not different. At the end of anesthesia, seven patients in Group F and one patient in Group B (P < 0.01) complained of severe pain. All patients in Group F, and only two in Group B (P < 0.02) received analgesics within 20 hours. Neither nausea nor respiratory depression was found in both groups. This study suggests that buprenorphine would provide a more stable hemodynamic state and better postoperative pain relief than fentanyl in TIVA using propofol.     

General anesthesia with propofol and fentanyl for adult cardiac surgery

We employed propofol anesthesia with a restricted dose of fentanyl in adult cardiac surgery with the aim of early tracheal extubation and evaluated its effects on the intraoperative factors and postoperative recovery compared with those of a previous benzodiazepine-fentanyl regimen. During surgery, control group patients (n = 17) received intermittent bolus of benzodiazepines and fentanyl without restriction, whereas propofol group patients (n = 17) received continuous administration of propofol and the restricted dose of fentanyl (20 micrograms.kg-1). There were no significant differences in the times to eye opening (average 2.4 hr vs 1.6 hr, respectively, P = 0.30) and tracheal extubation (average 5.4 hr vs 4.0 hr, P = 0.25) between the groups. Both groups had similar postanesthetic circulatory status: cardiac index (average 3.6 l.min-1.m-2 vs 3.4 l.min-1.m-2, P = 0.46). The propofol group patients required smaller doses of vasodilators during cardiopulmonary bypass (average PGE1: 0.096 microgram.kg-1.min-1 vs 0.047 microgram.kg-1.min-1, P = 0.046, NTG: 0.69 microgram.kg-1.min-1 vs 0.31 microgram.kg-1.min-1, P = 0.009). It is suggested that propofol-based anesthesia could replace the previous regimen with no adverse hemodynamic effects and might have a potential to provide faster recovery and improve peripheral circulatory status in adult cardiac surgery.     

Effects of remifentanil and alfentanil on seizure duration, stimulus amplitudes and recovery parameters during ECT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Propofol may decrease seizure duration in electroconvulsive therapy. Although not proven, prolonged seizures may be more efficacious. The goal of this study was to evaluate and compare effects of alfentanil and remifentanil on seizure duration, recovery parameters and degree of stimulus amplitude in patients undergoing electroconvulsive therapy. METHODS: Twenty-four ASA I-II patients enrolled in this prospective, randomized trial, each receiving a total of seven electroconvulsive therapies. Patients were randomized to receive only Propofol, group P (0.75 mg kg-1, n=8), Propofol with alfentanil, group A (10 microg kg-1 alfentanil+0.5 mg kg-1 Propofol, n=8) and Propofol with remifentanil, group R (1 microg kg-1 remifentanil +0.5 mg kg-1 propofol, n=8) via an iv route. Supplemental doses of propofol were given as required to achieve loss of consciousness. Succinylcholine 0.5 mg kg-1 iv was given to all groups for muscular paralysis. We recorded hemodynamic parameters, cortical and motor seizure durations, and recovery parameters. RESULTS: Mean motor seizure duration was found to be significantly longer in patients receiving propofol-remifentanil anesthesia (53.3+/-13.6 s) and propofol-alfentanil anesthesia (52.2+/-0.4 s) compared with propofol anesthesia (37.6+/-9.2 s) (P=0.001). Recovery parameters and stimulus amplitudes were similar in groups A and R; significantly different from group P (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adding 10 microg kg-1 alfentanil or 1 microg kg-1 remifentanil to reduced doses of propofol provided unconsciousness and increased seizure durations. For patients who need higher stimulus amplitudes for longer seizure durations, combining low-dose propofol with alfentanil or remifentanil may be good alternative regimens for ECT.     

射频消融辅助上气道手术患者瑞芬太尼、异丙酚联合局部麻醉的效果

目的 评价射频消融辅助上气道手术(CAUP)患者瑞芬太尼、异丙酚联合局部麻醉的效果.方法 拟在局麻下行CAUP手术的中、重度阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停低通气综合征患者80例,年龄25～60岁,体重指数≤35 kg/m2,ASA Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,随机分为4组(n=20):生理盐水组(S组)、异丙酚组(P组)、瑞芬太尼组(R组)和异丙酚复合瑞芬太尼组(PR组).1%丁卡因咽部表面麻醉后,S组静脉输注生理盐水0.15 ml·kg-1·h-1,P组静脉输注异丙酚25μg·kg-1·min-1,R组静脉输注瑞芬太尼O.05μg·kg·min-1,PR组静脉输注异丙酚25μg·ks-1·min-1和瑞芬太尼0.05μg·kg-1·min-1.10 min后用含1:200 000肾上腺素的利多卡因行术野局部浸润麻醉.术中每5分钟采用Ramsay评分评价镇静程度;采用主诉疼痛分级(VRS)评价疼痛程度.S组VRS分级为Ⅲ级时为麻醉失败,其余3组VRS分级为Ⅲ级时,增加输注速率或静脉注射异丙酚10 mg或瑞芬太尼20μg;如出现Ramsay评分>3分或呼吸抑制(RR<8次/min或SpO2<95%),则为麻醉失败.于射频消融前和射频消融5 min时记录BP和HR.记录气道阻塞和呼吸暂停等不良反应的发生情况.结果 R组、PR组麻醉成功率(分别为90%、100%)高于s组和P组(分别为40%、65%)(P<0.05).与S组比较,射频消融5 min时P组SP、DP和HR差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),R组和PR组SP、DP和HR降低(P<0.05).4组不良反应发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P>O.05).结论 瑞芬太尼和异丙酚复合瑞芬太尼联合局部麻醉可安全、有效地用于患者射频消融辅助上气道手术.     

Sedation in spinal anesthesia. Comparison of remifentanil and propofol]

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of remifentanil for analgesia and sedation during subarachnoidea anesthesia, and to compare remifentanil with propofol. METHOD: Ninety ASA I-III patients undergoing orthopedic or traumatologic surgery under subarachnoid anesthesia were enrolled for prospective study and randomly assigned to two treatment groups. The propofol group (n = 45) received a single dose of 0.5 mg/kg followed by infusion at 3 mg/kg/h. The remifentanil group (n = 45) received a single dose of 0.5 microgram/kg followed by infusion at 0.1 microgram/kg/min. We evaluated quality of sedation, pain intensity during nerve blockade, hemodynamic and respiratory parameters and time until recovery. RESULTS: The remifentanil group experienced less moderate-to-intense pain (13%) than did the propofol group (63%) (p < 0.01). Sedation was adequate in both groups and was easy to control by adjusting the rate of infusion. Times until recovery of consciousness and respiratory frequency after withdrawal of infusion until recovery of baseline levels were 7.87 +/- 3.54 min and 5.22 +/- 2.49 min, respectively, in the remifentanil group and 8.72 +/- 4.59 min and 5.36 +/- 2.49 min, respectively, in the propofol group, respectively. Patients in the remifentanil group experienced a significantly greater decrease in SpO2 than did those in the propofol group (20% and 4%, respectively; p < 0.05). Mean blood pressure was higher for patients treated with remifentanil. The incidence of vomiting was also higher in the remifentanil group than in the propofol group (9% vs 0%). CONCLUSION: Remifentanil is more effective in reducing pain related to nerve blockade and level of sedation is lower; however remifentanil is associated with a higher incidence of respiratory depression and vomiting.     

Small doses of remifentanil or sufentanil for blunting cardiovascular changes induced by tracheal intubation: a double-blind comparison

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects on cardiovascular changes induced by tracheal intubation when small doses of either remifentanil or sufentanil are used in the presence of midazolam. METHODS: Thirty normotensive, ASA physical status I-II patients, receiving general anaesthesia for major abdominal surgery, received an intravenous midazolam premedication (0.05 mg kg-1) 10 min before induction. They were randomly allocated to receive in a double-blind fashion an intravenous bolus of either (a) remifentanil given as a bolus dose 1 microgram kg-1 (n = 15), or else (b) sufentanil 0.1 microgram kg-1 infused over 60 s (n = 15). In each instance this loading dose was followed by a continuous intravenous infusion (0.1 microgram kg-1 min-1 or 0.01 microgram kg-1 min-1 of remifentanil or sufentanil, respectively). General anaesthesia was induced with propofol (2 mg kg-1), followed by atracurium besilate (0.5 mg kg-1) to facilitate tracheal intubation. Following intubation, the lungs were mechanically ventilated with a 60% nitrous oxide in oxygen mixture and a 1% inspired sevoflurane. RESULTS: Arterial pressure and heart rate were recorded before induction of anaesthesia (baseline), immediately before intubation, immediately after tracheal intubation and every minute for the first five minutes thereafter. No differences in systolic and diastolic arterial pressures were observed between the two groups. At the end of the study period, systolic and diastolic pressures slightly decreased from preinduction values in both groups. Four patients in the remifentanil group (26%) and five patients in sufentanil group (33%) showed at least one systolic pressure value < 90 mmHg during the study period (P = not significant); however, the observed decreases in systolic pressure were transient and did not require treatment. Heart rate values were not affected by tracheal intubation in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy normotensive patients without cardiovascular disease the use of a relatively small dose of either remifentanil or sufentanil after standard midazolam premedication results in a similar and clinically acceptable effectiveness in blunting the cardiovascular changes induced by tracheal intubation.     

Midazolam-flumazenil vs. propofol in ambulatory ENT endoscopic procedures.

Two total intravenous anaesthesia techniques were compared in an open study of 80 ambulatory patients undergoing ENT endoscopic procedures randomly assigned to two groups: Group I midazolam-flumazenil n = 40, Group II propofol n = 40. The mean doses including induction were 0.75 +/- 0.31 mg kg-1 h-1 for midazolam and 171 +/- 64 micrograms kg-1 min-1 for propofol for 46.3 +/- 17.7 min and 50.3 +/- 24.8 min respectively. At the end of the procedure flumazenil 8.1 +/- 1.9 micrograms kg-1 was administered to Group I patients followed by a flumazenil continuous infusion at a minimal arousal rate (MAR) of 0.24 +/- 0.1 micrograms kg-1 min-1, and propofol discontinued in Group II patients. Baseline mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) were similar in both groups and remained so during the procedure and recovery. In patients with cardiovascular disease, large variations (greater than or equal to 40% of baseline values) occurred more frequently in the propofol group whereas large variations in patients with no cardiovascular disease occurred more frequently in the midazolam group (P less than 0.05). Early recovery was more rapid after midazolam (P less than 0.05) whereas late criteria for recovery (maze and ambulation tests) were met more rapidly after propofol (P less than 0.05). It is concluded that with the midazolam-flumazenil sequence, early recovery is faster and haemodynamic stability better maintained in poor cardiovascular risk patients, whereas with propofol, street-fitness is more rapidly obtained, and haemodynamic stability better maintained in good risk patients.     

妇科腹腔镜手术患者右美托咪啶或瑞芬太尼复合七氟醚麻醉效果的比较

目的 比较妇科腹腔镜手术患者使用右美托咪啶复合七氟醚与瑞芬太尼复合七氟醚麻醉的效果.方法 择期拟行妇科腹腔镜手术患者40例,年龄18～64岁,BMI 18～30 kg/m2,ASA分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级.采用随机数字表法,将患者随机均分为2组(n=20):右美托咪啶复合麻醉组(D组)和瑞芬太尼复合麻醉组(R组).D组和R组麻醉诱导前5 min时静脉输注右美托咪啶0.05μg·kg·min-1或瑞芬太尼0.1μg·kg-1·min-1,10 min后输注速率为右美托咪啶0.3μg·kg-1·h-1,瑞芬太尼0.15μg·kg-1·min-1.麻醉诱导:静脉注射异丙酚1.5～2.0 mg/kg、顺阿曲库铵0.15 mg/kg和芬太尼2 μg/kg,气管插管后行机械通气,维持PET CO2 35～40 mm Hg.麻醉维持:吸人3%七氟醚,并调节其吸入浓度维持Narcotrend指数40～50,气腹开始时静脉注射芬太尼1 μg/kg,按需静脉注射顺阿曲库铵.分别于给药前、气管插管后5 min、气腹10 min和气管拔管后5 min时,抽取颈外静脉血样,测定血清皮质醇、去甲肾上腺素和肾上腺素的浓度,并行血气分析,记录pH值、乳酸和葡萄糖的浓度.记录呼吸恢复时间、睁眼时间、气管拔管时间和定向力恢复时间.记录围术期不良反应的发生情况和术后2 h内镇痛药的使用情况.结果 与R组比较,D组气腹10 min时血清去甲肾上腺素和肾上腺素的浓度降低,呼吸恢复时间缩短,睁眼时间延长,气管拔管期间心动过速、术后寒战和恶心呕吐的发生率降低,术后芬太尼的使用率降低(P＜0.05).结论 妇科腹腔镜手术患者右美托咪啶复合七氟醚麻醉的效果优于瑞芬太尼复合七氟醚.

Abstract：

Objective To compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus remifentanil in combination with sevoflurane for gynecological laparoscopy. Methods Forty ASA Ⅰ or Ⅱ patients aged 18-64 yr with body mass index of 18-30 kg/m2 undergoing gynecological laparoscopy were randomly assigned to one of two groups ( n =20 each): dexmedetomidine group (group D) and remifentanil group (group R). Starting from 5 min before induction of anesthesia, dexmedetomidine was infused at 0.05 μg · kg - 1 · min- 1 in group D and remifentanil at 0.1 μg· kg- 1· min-1 in group R for 10 min, then dexmedetomidine infusion rate was increased to 0. 3 μg· kg-1 · h-1 and remifentanil infusion rate was increased to 0.15 μg· kg-1 · min-1 . Anesthesia was induced with propofol 1.5-2.0 mg/kg and fentanyl 2 μg/kg. Tracheal intubation was facilitated with cis-atracurium 0.15 mg/kg. Anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane and fentanyl 1 μg/kg and intermittent iv boluses of cis-atracurium. Narcotrend index was maintained at 40-50. Blood sample was taken from external jugular vein for blood gas analysis and determination of serum concentrations of corticosteroid, norepinephrine and epinephrine before administration, at 5 min after intubation, at 10 min of aeroperitoneum and at 5 min after extubation. The pH value and concentrations of lactic acid and glucose were recorded. The time for recovery of spontaneous breathing, eye-opening time, extubation time, orientation time and perioperative side-effects were recorded. Numeric rating scale was used to assess the intensity of pain during 2 h after operation. The analgesics used were also recorded. Results The serum concentrations of norepinephrine and epinephrine were significanfly lower at 10 min of aeroperitoneum, the time for recovery of spontaneous breathing was shorter, eye-opening time longer and the incidence of shivering and nausea and vomiting lower, the percentage of patients requiring rescue opioids lower in group D than in group R ( P ＜ 0.05). Conclusion The efficacy of dexmedetomidine combined with sevoflurane anesthesia is better than remifentanil combined with sevoflurane anesthesia for gynecological laparoscopy.     

A comparison of propofol and remifentanil for sedation and limitation of movement during periretrobulbar block

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical conditions in patients sedated with propofol or remifentanil during combined peri-bulbar and retrobulbar block (PRBB) for cataract surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind study. SETTING: Private clinic. PATIENTS: 106 ASA physical status I and II patients scheduled for cataract surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either 0.5 mg/kg propofol (Group P) or 0.3 microg/kg remifentanil (Group R) as an intravenous (IV) bolus 1 minute prior to PRBB. At the same time, patients in both groups also received 0.5 to 1 mg midazolam IV. Movement of the hands, arms, head, and eyes were counted during each stage of the procedure by an observer who was blinded to the sedation used. Heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), respiratory rate (RR), expiratory CO(2) (PECO(2)), and hemoglobin oxygen saturation (SaO(2)) were recorded every minute for 10 minutes after the PRBB. Anesthetic complications, recall, and the pain experienced with the block and surgery were compared between the two groups. Means and variance of the results were compared with one-way analysis of variance and Fisher's exact test. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Movements of the hands, arms, and head were significantly greater in Group P during all stages of the block. Almost no movements were recorded in the remifentanil group. Immediately after the PRBB (1 to 6 min), HRs were higher in Group P (73 +/- 11 bpm vs. 67 +/- 10 bpm; p = 0.0075), whereas the RRs were slower in Group R for the period 1 to 5 minutes after the PRBB (16 +/- 5 breaths/min vs.14 +/- 4 breaths/min; p = 0.0206). At these times, the mean PECO(2) was higher in Group R (36 +/- 7 mmHgvs. 32 +/- 9 mmHg; p = 0.0125). Nineteen patients in the propofol group sneezed during the medial peribulbar injection compared with none in the remifentanil group. Anesthetic and surgical complications were unremarkable and similar for the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory depression with remifentanil was mild and not clinically significant. Remifentanil sedation for this application was superior to sedation with propofol.     

Lightwand Tracheal Intubation with and without Muscle Relaxation

Background: Lightwand tracheal intubation is a suitable technique for patients who are difficult to intubate but who are receiving effective ventilation. The effect of muscle relaxants on the efficacy of lightwand intubation has not yet been evaluated. The authors conducted a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to assess the effectiveness and incidence of complications of lightwand tracheal intubation performed during general anesthesia with and without the use of a muscle relaxant in patients with apparently normal airway anatomy.

Methods: One hundred seventy-six patients who required orotracheal intubation were prospectively included. Anesthesia was administered using propofol (2 mg/kg, then 3 mg [middle dot] kg-1 [middle dot] h-1) and remifentanil (1 [mu]g/kg, then 0.3 [mu]g [middle dot] kg-1 [middle dot] min-1). Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups (n = 88 for each) to receive rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg or saline intravenously. Lightwand orotracheal intubation (Trachlight(R); Laerdal Medical Inc., Armonk, NY) was attempted after 3 min. The authors recorded the number of successful intubations, the number of attempts and their duration, and events during the procedure.

Results: The failure rate of lightwand intubation was 12% in the placebo group and 2% in the rocuronium group (P = 0.021). Patients in the placebo group received more multiple intubation attempts (P < 0.001), required a greater intubation time (77 +/- 65 vs. 52 +/- 31 s; P = 0.002) and experienced a greater incidence of events during intubation (61 vs. 0%; P < 0.001) than patients in the rocuronium group.     

TIVA mit Propofol/Remifentanil oder balancierte Anästhesie mit Sevofluran/Fentanyl bei laparoskopischen Operationen

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to investigate the differences between TIVA with propofol/remifentanil (P/R) and balanced anaesthesia with sevoflurane/fentanyl (S/F) in gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Emphasis was put on haemodynamic reaction, recovery profile, postoperative side effects and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Sixty patients were randomly assigned to receive either total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol/remifentanil or anaesthesia with sevoflurane/fentanyl. After premedication (midazolam) and induction of anesthesia (propofol, atracurium) in both groups, either 1 microgram/kg fentanyl (S/F) or 1 microgram/kg remifentanil (P/R) was injected. Anaesthesia was maintained with 0.5 microgram/kg/min remifentanil (reduced to 50% after 5 min) and 0.06 microgram/kg/min propofol (P/R) or 1.7 vol % sevoflurane (S/F). Both groups were mechanically ventilated with 30% oxygen in air. The administration of sevoflurane and the infusion of the anaesthetics were adjusted to maintain a surgical depth of anaesthesia. For postoperative analgesia 1 g paracetamol was administered rectally prior to surgery. After recovery 20 mg/kg metamizol was given intravenously. At the end of surgery the anaesthetics were discontinued and haemodynamics, early emergence from anaesthesia, pain level, frequency of analgesic demand, incidence of PONV, shivering and patient satisfaction were assessed. Parameters were recorded for 24 h postoperatively. RESULTS: Recovery time after propofol-remifentanil anaesthesia was significantly shorter than after administration of sevoflurane and fentanyl (spontaneous ventilation 4.1 vs. 6.3 min, extubation 4.3 vs. 9.3 min, eye opening 4.4 vs 8.2 min, stating name 5.3 vs. 13.2 min, stating date of birth 5.4 vs. 13.3 min). There were no significant differences between the groups in shivering, pain score, analgesic demand and PONV. The S/F group responded to tracheal intubation with significantly higher blood pressure than the P/R group. During maintenance of anaesthesia heart rate in patients with S/F was significantly higher (P/R:HR max +16/-10; S/F:HR max +24/-0.). Measured on a scale (S/F 62%). CONCLUSION: Compared with patients given balanced anaesthesia with sevoflurane and fentanyl, TIVA with propofol and remifentanil proved to be particularly suited for gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Its major advantages are haemodynamic stability, significantly shorter times of emergence, and the exceptional acceptance by the patients.     

Sedation with propofol and fentanyl in patients under intensive care]

This study investigated the efficacy of a constant rate infusion of propofol and fentanyl in thirty patients requiring artificial ventilation for more than 24 h. A loading dose, which differed according to the patient's age, was administered over a 30 min period: 2.5 mg.kg-1 for patients less than 50 (G1) (n = 9), 2 mg.kg-1 for patients between 50 and 60 years old (G2) (n = 9), and 1.5 mg.kg-1 for patients over 60 (G3) (n = 12). This was followed by an infusion of 3 mg.kg-1.h-1 in G1 and G2, and 2 mg.kg-1.h-1 in G3. A 1 microgram.kg-1.h-1 infusion of fentanyl was also given. The degree of sedation was assessed with the Ramsay scale before starting, after induction, and every four hours thereafter. When this proved to be insufficient, the dose of propofol was increased by 0.5 mg.kg-1.h-1 as well as that of fentanyl by 0.5 microgram.kg-1.h-1. Heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, blood propofol, creatinine, transaminase and lipid levels, and urine output were measured before, during, and after the infusion. The blood propofol level increased during the infusion, being correlated to the doses given (r = 0.64, p less than 0.001). Sedation lasted 91.7 +/- 57.7 h. After stopping the infusion of propofol, mean recovery times were 7.5 +/- 5.9 min (G1), 11.4 +/- 11.4 min, and 14.4 +/- 13.5 min (G3) (p less than 0.05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)