Propofol anaesthesia via target controlled infusion or manually controlled infusion: effects on the bispectral index as a measure of anaesthetic depth.

Target controlled infusions (TCI) of propofol allow anaesthetists to target constant blood concentrations and respond promptly to signs of inappropriate anaesthetic depth. Studies comparing propofol TCI with manually controlled infusion (MCI) reported similar control of anaesthesia, but did not use an objective measure of anaesthetic depth. We therefore tested whether the Bispectral Index (BIS), an electroencephalographic (EEG) variable, is more stable during propofol TCI or MCI. Forty patients received midazolam and fentanyl before induction and were randomized to TCI or MCI. Target propofol concentrations in the TCI group were 3 to 8 microg/ml. The MCI group received propofol bolus (approximately 2 mg/kg) and infusion (3 to 10 mg/kg/h). Neuromuscular blockade was achieved with rocuronium. Following endotracheal intubation, nitrous oxide (66%) in oxygen was delivered and propofol infusion and fentanyl boluses were titrated against clinical signs. Blood pressure, heart rate and EEG were recorded, although the anaesthetist was blind to BIS values. The ideal BIS for general anaesthesia was defined as 50. Performance error, absolute performance error, wobble and divergence of BIS, and maximum changes in blood pressure and heart rate were compared using two-sample t-tests or rank-sum tests where appropriate. There was no difference in absolute performance errors during maintenance of anaesthesia with propofol TCI or MCI (23 +/- 11% vs 23 +/- 9%; P=0.97). The two groups did not differ significantly in performance error, wobble, divergence on haemodynamic changes. We conclude that TCI and MCI result in similar depth of anaesthesia and haemodynamic stability when titrated against traditional clinical signs.     

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.     

Target-controlled infusion or manually controlled infusion of propofol in high-risk patients with severely reduced left ventricular function

OBJECTIVE: To compare hemodynamics, time to extubation, and costs of target-controlled infusion (TCI) with manually controlled infusion (MCI) of propofol in high-risk cardiac surgery patients. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized. SETTING: Major community university-affiliated hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty patients undergoing first-time implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator with severely reduced left ventricular function (left ventricular ejection fraction <30%). INTERVENTIONS: Anesthesia was performed using remifentanil, 0.2 to 0.3 microg/kg/min, and propofol. Propofol was used as TCI (plasma target concentration, 2 to 3 microg x mL; n = 10) or MCI (2.5 to 3.5 mg/kg/hr; n = 10). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Hemodynamics were measured at 6 data points: T1, before anesthesia; T2, after intubation; T3, after skin incision; T4, after first defibrillation; T5, after third defibrillation; and T6, after extubation. There were no significant hemodynamic differences between the 2 groups. Dobutamine was required to maintain cardiac index >2 L/min/m(2) in significantly more patients of the TCI group than of the MCI group. Mean dose of propofol was higher in the TCI patients (6.0 +/- 1.0 mg/kg/hr) than in the MCI patients (3.0 +/- 0.4 mg/kg/hr) (p < 0.05), whereas doses of remifentanil did not differ. Time to extubation was significantly shorter in the MCI (11.9 +/- 2.4 min) versus the TCI group (15.6 +/- 6.8 min). Costs were significantly lower in MCI patients (34.73 dollars) than in TCI patients (44.76 dollars). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severely reduced left ventricular function, TCI and MCI of propofol in combination with remifentanil showed similar hemodynamics. TCI patients needed inotropic support more often than MCI-treated patients. Although extubation time was longer in TCI patients and costs were higher, both anesthesia techniques can be recommended for early extubation after implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator.     

Intravenous magnesium sulfate administration reduces propofol infusion requirements during maintenance of propofol-N2O anesthesia: part I: comparing propofol requirements according to hemodynamic responses: part II: comparing bispectral index in control and magnesium groups

BACKGROUND: The authors investigated whether an intravenous administration of magnesium sulfate reduces propofol infusion requirements during maintenance of propofol-N2O anesthesia. METHODS: Part I study: 54 patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy were randomly divided into two groups (n = 27 per group). The patients in the control group received 0.9% sodium chloride solution, whereas the patients in the magnesium group received magnesium (50 mg/kg as a bolus, then 8 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1)). To maintain mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) at baseline value, the propofol infusion rate was changed when the MAP or the HR changed. The amount of propofol infused excluding the bolus dosage was divided by patient's body weight and total infusion time. Part II study: Another 20 patients were randomly divided into two groups (n = 10 per group). When the MAP and HR had been maintained at baseline value and the propofol infusion rate had been maintained at 80 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) (magnesium group) and 160 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) (control group), bispectral index (BIS) values were measured. RESULTS: Part I: The mean propofol infusion rate in the magnesium group (81.81 +/- 13.09 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) was significantly less than in the control group (167.57 +/- 47.27). Part II: BIS values in the control group (40.70 +/- 3.89) were significantly less than those in the magnesium group (57.80 +/- 7.32). CONCLUSION: Intravenous administration of magnesium sulfate reduces propofol infusion requirements. These results suggest that magnesium administration may have an effect on anesthesia or analgesia and may be a useful adjunct to propofol anesthesia.     

Target-controlled infusion for remifentanil in vascular patients improves hemodynamics and decreases remifentanil requirement

Remifentanil is a potent ultra-short-acting opioid, which permits rapid emergence. However, remifentanil is expensive and may have detrimental effects on hemodynamics in case of overdose. Target-controlled infusion (TCI) permits adapting infusion to pharmacokinetic models. In this prospective randomized study, we compared intra- and postoperative hemodynamics, remifentanil requirement during anesthesia, and postoperative morphine requirement in patients scheduled for carotid surgery, and receiving either continuous IV weight-adjusted infusion of remifentanil (RIVA) or TCI for remifentanil (TCIR). Forty-six patients were enrolled in this study: all were anesthetized by using TCI for propofol. Twenty-three received RIVA (0.5 micro g. kg(-1) x min(-1)) for the induction of anesthesia and endotracheal intubation, with the infusion rate decreased to 0.25 micro g x kg(-1) x min(-1) after intubation, then adapted by step of 0.05 micro g x kg(-1) x min(-1) according to hemodynamics. Twenty-three patients received TCIR (Minto model, Rugloop), with an effect-site concentration at 4 ng/mL during induction, then adapted by step of 1 ng/mL according to hemodynamics. All patients received atracurium and a 50% mixture of N(2)O/O(2). Hemodynamic variables were recorded each minute. The number and duration of hemodynamic events were collected, and total doses of anesthetics (remifentanil and propofol) and vasoactive drugs were noted in both groups of patients. Data were analyzed by using unpaired t-tests. RIVA was significantly associated with more frequent episodes of intraoperative hypotension (16 versus 6, P < 0.001) and more frequent episodes of postoperative hypertension and/or tachycardia requiring more frequent administration of beta-adrenergic blockers (16 vs 10, P < 0.04) in comparison with TCIR. The need for morphine titration was not significantly different between groups. TCIR led to a significantly smaller requirement of remifentanil (700 +/- 290 versus 1390 +/- 555 micro g, P < 0.001) without difference in propofol requirement. This prospective randomized study demonstrated that, during carotid endarterectomy, in comparison with patients receiving remifentanil using continuous RIVA, TCI results in less hypotensive episodes during the induction of anesthesia, in fewer episodes of tachycardia and/or hypertension and a smaller beta-adrenergic blocker requirement during recovery, and a decrease in remifentanil requirement. Recommendations to prefer TCI for remifentanil administration during carotid endarterectomy may be justified. IMPLICATIONS: Remifentanil for intraoperative analgesia in carotid artery surgery is associated with a better stability in perioperative hemodynamics when administered in target-controlled infusion compared with continuous weight-adjusted infusion. This may be related to a smaller requirement of this drug when using target-controlled infusion, as well as a smooth mode of administration.     

Target-controlled versus manually-controlled infusion of propofol for direct laryngoscopy and bronchoscopy

Few studies have compared the clinical profile of target-controlled infusions of propofol with that of manually-controlled infusions. Fifty-four ASA physical status I or II patients scheduled for an elective otorhinolaryngology endoscopy performed under general anesthesia with spontaneous ventilation were enrolled in this prospective randomized study to compare the clinical outcome of such administrations. Before induction, all patients received a single alfentanil bolus dose (10 microg/kg). Propofol administration was adapted to maintain absence of movement, hemodynamic stability, and efficient spontaneous ventilation. When compared with the Manually-Controlled Infusion group, in the Target-Controlled Infusion group there were fewer movements at insertion of the laryngoscope (14.8% vs. 44.4%), improved hemodynamic stability (largest variations of mean arterial blood pressure <10% of control values, versus 20%), fewer episodes of apnea, and less respiratory acidosis after endoscopy (pH = 7.37 +/- 0.05 and PaCO(2) = 50 +/- 7 mm Hg versus pH = 7.28 +/- 0.06 and PaCO(2) = 58 +/- 9 mm Hg); the recovery was also shorter (time to opening eyes or verbal response, 4.6 +/- 2.0 min and 6.8 +/- 2.5 min versus 10.8 +/- 7.3 min and 15.7 +/- 7.1 min). Propofol consumption was comparable in the two groups. Targeting the effect-site concentration improved the time course of the propofol drug effect during direct laryngoscopy performed during spontaneous ventilation when compared with manual infusion. IMPLICATIONS: This study compares the clinical profile of propofol anesthesia for direct laryngoscopy with spontaneous ventilation when the drug is administered either as a manually controlled infusion or by targeting the effect-site concentration through a target-controlled infusion (TCI) device. TCI improves the time course of propofol effects.     

A comparison of sevoflurane, target-controlled infusion propofol, and propofol/isoflurane anesthesia in patients undergoing carotid surgery: a quality of anesthesia and recovery profile

In a prospective randomized study in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy, we compared the hemodynamic effects, the quality of induction, and the quality of recovery from a hypnotic drug for the induction of anesthesia with sevoflurane, a target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol, or propofol 1.5 microg/kg followed by isoflurane. All patients were premedicated with midazolam and received sufentanil 0.4 microg/kg at induction. The induction of anesthesia was associated with a decrease in arterial blood pressure in all groups, but this was least pronounced in the Sevoflurane group. There were similar a number of episodes of hypotension, hypertension, and tachycardia among groups, but the incidence of bradycardia was less in the TCI group (P < 0.05) compared with the other groups. The duration of episodes of hypotension was shorter (P < 0.05) in the TCI Propofol group (1.9 +/- 2.3 min) compared with the Sevoflurane group (4.7 +/- 3.6 min). The duration of episodes of bradycardia was significantly lower (P < 0.05) in the TCI Propofol group (0.1 +/- 0.5 min) in comparison with the Propofol Bolus group (2.5 +/- 3.9 min). Similar doses of vasoactive drugs were used in all groups. The induction of anesthesia with sevoflurane was associated with inferior conditions for intubation in comparison with both Propofol groups, although the time to intubation was faster in the Sevoflurane group (P < 0.05). The recovery characteristics were similar in the three groups.     

Clinical variables related to propofol effect-site concentrations at recovery of consciousness after neurosurgical procedures

Target controlled infusion (TCI) systems and computer data acquisition software are increasingly used in anesthesia. It was hypothesized that the use of such systems might allow retrieval of information useful to anticipate the effect-site concentrations of propofol at which patients would recover from anesthesia. The goal of the study was to identify variables related to propofol effect-site concentrations at recovery of consciousness (ROC). Sixteen patients with a Glasgow of 15, ASA 1 or 2, subjected to neurosurgical procedures, received TIVA with TCI propofol and remifentanil. Data were collected every 5 seconds from Datex AS3 and Aspect A200XP (BIS). Effect-site TCI was used for propofol (initial effect target 5.0 microg/ml) and for remifentanil (initial plasma target 2.5 ng/ml). All clinical events were noted. Variables possibly related to propofol effect-site concentration at ROC were selected. Data are expressed as mean +/- SD. Effect-site propofol concentration at ROC was 1.3 +/- 0.5 microg/ml. A positive correlation was found between propofol effect-site concentration at ROC and: age (49.3 +/- 17 years) (P = 0.003); mean remifentanil dose during surgery (0.11 +/- 0.05 microg/kg/min) (P = 0.003); mean propofol dose during surgery (0.12 +/- 0.03 mg/kg/min) (P = 0.046); and remifentanil effect-site concentration at ROC (2.85 +/- 2.06 ng/ml) (P = 0.002). Propofol effect-site concentrations were not correlated with: weight, height, LBM, duration of anesthesia, minimum BIS at induction (30.4 +/- 6.8), time till minimum BIS (4.7 +/- 2.2 min), mean and median BIS during surgery (38.2 +/- 4.5 and 37.8 +/- 5.3). BIS-related variables were not useful as ROC predictors. Only drug variables and age correlated with propofol effect-site concentrations at ROC.     

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.     

Bispectral index in patients with target-controlled or manually-controlled infusion of propofol

In this prospective, randomized study we compared bispectral index (BIS), hemodynamics, time to extubation, and the costs of target-controlled infusion (TCI) and manually-controlled infusion (MCI) of propofol. Forty patients undergoing first-time implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator were included. Anesthesia was performed with remifentanil (0.2-0.3 micro g. kg(-1). min(-1)) and propofol. Propofol was used as TCI (plasma target concentration, 2.5-3.5 micro g/mL; n = 20) or MCI (3.0-4.0 mg. kg(-1). h(-1); n = 20). BIS, heart rate, and arterial blood pressure were measured at six data points: T1, before anesthesia; T2, after intubation; T3, after skin incision; T4, after first defibrillation; T5, after third defibrillation; and T6, after extubation. There were no significant hemodynamic differences between the two groups. BIS was significantly lower at T3 and T4 in the TCI group than in the MCI group. The mean dose of propofol was larger in TCI patients (5.8 +/- 1.4 mg. kg(-1). h(-1)) than in the MCI patients (3.7 +/- 0.6 mg. kg(-1). h(-1)) (P < 0.05), whereas doses of remifentanil did not differ. Time to extubation did not differ between the two groups (TCI, 13.7 +/- 5.3 min; MCI, 12.3 +/- 3.5 min). One patient in the MCI group had signs of intraoperative awareness without explicit memory after first defibrillation (BIS before shock, 49; after shock, 83). Costs were significantly less in the MCI group (34.83 US dollars) than in the TCI group (39.73 US dollars). BIS failed to predict the adequacy of anesthesia for the next painful stimulus. IMPLICATIONS: In this prospective, randomized study, bispectral index (BIS), hemodynamics, time to extubation, and costs of target-controlled infusion (TCI) and manually-controlled infusion of propofol were compared. TCI increased the amount of propofol used. BIS failed to predict the adequacy of anesthesia for the next painful stimulus.     

The effect of epidural bupivacaine on induction and maintenance doses of propofol (evaluated by bispectral index) and maintenance doses of fentanyl and vecuronium

The growing interest in combining local and general anesthesia has led to studies investigating possible interactions between general anesthesia and local anesthetics administered via spinal, epidural, IV, or IM routes. However, no study has evaluated the effect of local anesthetics on all three components of balanced anesthesia, i.e., hypnosis, analgesia, and muscle relaxation. In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, we investigated the effect of epidural bupivacaine on the dose requirement of propofol (as evaluated by using the bispectral index [BIS]), fentanyl, and vecuronium for general anesthesia. This study consisted of 30 adults, ASA physical status I and II, undergoing Whipple's pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary carcinoma lasting >4 h. An epidural catheter was placed between T9-10. Depending on the group allocation, 10 mL of the study drug was administered as a bolus followed by an infusion at 6 mL/h via the epidural catheter. Patients were divided into 2 groups of 15 each. Patients in the control group received epidural normal saline whereas those in the bupivacaine group received epidural bupivacaine 0.1%. Induction of anesthesia was performed with IV fentanyl 2 mug/kg and propofol titrated to achieve BIS between 40-50. Endotracheal intubation was facilitated by the IV administration of vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg and patient's lungs were ventilated with 66% nitrous oxide in oxygen. After intubation, infusion of propofol 1% was titrated to maintain BIS between 40-50. Inadequate analgesia was defined as an increase in systolic blood pressure and/or heart rate by >20% of baseline values in response to surgical stimulus and was treated with bolus fentanyl 0.5 mug/kg. Neuromuscular monitoring was used to assess the need for additional doses of vecuronium. Data were analyzed by using the Student's t-test and P 相似文献   

A randomized double-blinded multicenter comparison of remifentanil versus fentanyl when combined with isoflurane/propofol for early extubation in coronary artery bypass graft surgery

We compared a fentanyl/isoflurane/propofol regimen with a remifentanil/isoflurane/propofol regimen for fast-track cardiac anesthesia in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study on patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Anesthesia was induced with a 1-min infusion of 0.5 mg/kg propofol followed by 10-mg boluses of propofol every 30 s until loss of consciousness. After 0.2 mg/kg cisatracurium, a blinded continuous infusion of remifentanil at 1 microg. kg(-1). min(-1) or the equivalent volume rate of normal saline was then started. In addition, a blinded bolus syringe of 1 microg/kg remifentanil or 10 microg/kg fentanyl, respectively, was given over 3 min. Blinded remifentanil, 1 microg. kg(-1). min(-1) (or the equivalent volume rate of normal saline), together with 0.5% isoflurane, were used to maintain anesthesia. Significantly more patients (P < 0.01) in the fentanyl regimen experienced hypertension during skin incision and maximum sternal spread compared with patients in the remifentanil regimen. There were no differences between the groups in time until extubation, discharge from the surgical intensive care unit, ST segment and other electrocardiogram changes, catecholamine levels, or cardiac enzymes. The remifentanil-based anesthetic (consisting of a bolus followed by a continuous infusion) resulted in significantly less response to surgical stimulation and less need for anesthetic interventions compared with the fentanyl regimen (consisting of an initial bolus, and followed by subsequent boluses only to treat hemodynamic responses) with both drug regimens allowing early extubation. IMPLICATIONS: Both fentanyl and the newer opioid remifentanil, when each is combined with isoflurane and propofol, allowed for fast-track cardiac anesthesia. The remifentanil regimen used in this study resulted in significantly less hemodynamic response to surgical stimulation.     

The use of esmolol as an alternative to remifentanil during desflurane anesthesia for fast-track outpatient gynecologic laparoscopic surgery

We compared esmolol and remifentanil infusions with respect to their effect on intraoperative hemodynamic stability and early recovery after outpatient laparoscopic surgery when administered as IV adjuvants during desflurane anesthesia. After premedication with midazolam 2 mg IV, anesthesia was induced with propofol 2 mg. kg(-1) IV in combination with either esmolol 1 mg. kg(-1) IV (n = 27) or remifentanil 1 microg. kg(-1) IV (n = 26) and succinylcholine 1 mg. kg(-1) IV according to a randomized, double-blinded protocol. Anesthesia was initially maintained with desflurane 2.5% (subsequently titrated to maintain an electroencephalogram-bispectral index value of 60) and nitrous oxide 65% in oxygen. Before skin incision, an infusion of either esmolol (5 microg. kg(-1). min(-1)) or remifentanil (0.05 microg. kg(-1). min(-1)) was started and titrated to maintain the heart rate within 25% of the baseline value. Mivacurium, 0.04 mg/kg IV, bolus doses were administered to maintain a stable peak inspiratory pressure. Esmolol (12.8 +/- 13.1 microg. kg(-1). min(-1)) and remifentanil (0.04 +/- 0.02 microg. kg(-1). min(-1)) infusions were equally effective in maintaining a stable heart rate during these laparoscopic procedures. Although the mivacurium requirement was larger in the Esmolol group (7 +/- 5 vs 3 +/- 4 mg), the Esmolol group reported a smaller incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (4% vs 35%). Both drugs were associated with frequent "postanesthesia care unit bypass" rates (78-81%), short times to "home readiness" (119-120 min), excellent patient satisfaction (81-85%), and rapid resumption of normal activities (2.6-3.2 d). Fast-tracked patients were ready for discharge home significantly earlier (112 +/- 46 vs 151 +/- 50 min). We concluded that esmolol infusion is an acceptable alternative to remifentanil infusion for maintaining hemodynamic stability during desflurane-based fast-track anesthesia for outpatient gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.     

Postoperative analgesia after preincisional administration of remifentanil

AIM: The aim of this study was to assess postoperative analgesia after preincisional and postincisional administration of remifentanil. METHODS: Randomized trial, 24 hours. Setting: University hospital, hospitalized care. Patients: 48 adult patients scheduled for lumbar vertebral surgery. Interventions: in group R5, patients received an infusion of 0.2 microg kg(-1) min(-1) remifentanil over 5 minutes, followed by a break of 15 minutes before anesthesia was started. Anesthesia was induced by infusion of 0.25 microg kg(-1) min(-1) remifentanil and a bolus of 1.5 microg kg(-1) propofol, followed by a continuous infusion of 2 to 3 microg kg(-1) h-1 propofol and 0.25 microg kg(-1) min(-1) remifentanil until end of anesthesia. In group R20, patients received 0.05 microg kg(-1) min(-1) remifentanil over 20 minutes before the induction of anesthesia. In group RL, anesthesia was induced and maintained with propofol. After surgery began, a remifentanil infusion of 0.5 microg kg(-1) min(-1) was given for 50 minutes, then reduced to 0.25 microg kg(-1) min(-1). The total remifentanil doses were similar in the 3 groups. Measures: patients used patient-controlled analgesia (piritramide) for postoperative pain management. They recorded pain on a numeric rating scale every half hour. Statistics: Kruskal-Wallis test, pairwise Mann-Withney U-test, orthogonal polynomials (pain scores). RESULTS: Patients given postincisional remifentanil (RL) had the slowest decrease in postoperative pain scores (p<0.01) and the highest cumulative piritramide consumption (p<0.08). CONCLUSION: The preincisional administration of remifentanil followed by a continuous infusion of 0.25 microg kg(-1) min(-1) appears to reduce pain scores and piritramid consumption when compared with a postincisional regimen.     

Comparison of total intravenous anesthesia and sevoflurane-fentanyl anesthesia for outpatient otorhinolaryngeal surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the recovery characteristics of two widely used anesthetic techniques: remifentanyl-propofol and sevoflurane-fentanyl in a standardized ambulatory population.DESIGN: Randomized, single-blinded study. SETTING: University-affiliated medical center. PATIENTS: 50 ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing elective ambulatory otorhinolaryngeal surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized two groups to receive total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA group) with remifentanil and propofol or sevoflurane-fentanyl (SF group). TIVA patients received induction with propofol 1.5 mg/kg intravenously (IV) and remifentanil 0.5 microg/kg IV. The anesthesia was continued with a continuous infusion of propofol 100 microg/kg/min and remifentanil 0.0625-0.25 microg/kg/min. The SF group received, at induction, fentanyl 2 microg/kg followed by propofol 1.5 mg/kg IV. Maintenance was obtained with 1 to 1.5 minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane and bolus of fentanyl 1 microg/kg IV as needed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Early recovery times (eye opening, response to commands, extubation, orientation, operating room stay after surgery, and Aldrete score > or =9) and patient satisfaction were similar between the two groups. Postanesthetic discharge scoring system (PADSS) > or = 9 was significantly shorter for the TIVA group (135.9 +/- 51 vs. 103 +/- 32 min) (p < 0.01) but this difference was not associated with a shorter postanesthesia care unit (PACU) length of stay. CONCLUSION: Early recovery times are comparable between total intravenous anesthesia and sevoflurane-based anesthesia. Even though patients in the TIVA group achieved home readiness criteria in a significantly shorter time, this technique does not shorten PACU length of stay, which depends instead on multiple nonmedical and administrative issues.     

A comparison of minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia and local anesthesia/propofol infusion for outpatient knee arthroscopy

Traditional methods of spinal anesthesia have proven problematic in the outpatient setting. Minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia (SAB(MLF)) may be the adaptation necessary to reestablish spinal anesthesia in this venue. One hundred patients scheduled for outpatient knee arthroscopy were randomized to receive either local anesthesia plus a titrated IV propofol infusion (LA/PI) or SAB(MLF) using 20 mg lidocaine 0.5% + 20 microg fentanyl. Patients received midazolam 0.02-0.03 mg/kg IV and fentanyl 0.75-1.0 microg/kg IV upon arrival in the operating room before lumbar puncture or propofol infusion. The propofol infusion was begun at 50-75 microg. kg(-)(1). min(-)(1) and titrated to maintain patient comfort. Boluses (200-400 microg/kg) were given as needed. Local anesthesia included 30 mL lidocaine 1% with epinephrine 1:200,000 intraarticularly plus 10 mL at the portal sites. Three patients (6%) in the LA/PI group versus none in the SAB(MLF) group required general anesthesia. Airway support was required in 54% of the LA/PI patients and in none of the SAB(MLF) patients. Total operating room time (43 vs 45 min), time to home readiness (43 vs 45 min), actual discharge times (73.5 min in both groups), and the incidence of discharge >90 min (22% vs 24%) were the same for both LA/PI and SAB(MLF) groups. LA/PI and SAB(MLF) groups differed in terms of postoperative pruritus (8% vs 68%), pain (44% vs 20%), nausea (8% vs 22%), and ability to void before discharge (56% vs 32%). One patient in each group had mild difficulty initiating voiding at home, but neither required medical attention. In both groups, 90% of patients were either "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their anesthetic. The two techniques provided comparable patient satisfaction and efficiencies both intraoperatively and in postoperative recovery and discharge. The efficiencies of these techniques were not dependent on special provisions of the physical plant or the practice model. IMPLICATIONS: Both local anesthesia supplemented by a titrated IV propofol infusion and minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia for outpatient knee arthroscopy provide high patient satisfaction with equally rapid recovery and discharge.     

Clinical usefulness of remifentanil

Anesthesia with remifentanil can be induced either with slow bolus administration (1 microg x kg(-1) for over 60 sec) or with starting the continuous infusion (0.5-1 microg x kg(-1) x hr(-1)) combined with a standard hypnotic agent (i.e. propofol, thiamylal, sevoflurane or isoflurane). According to the patient's requirement observing hemodynamics, the infusion rate of remifentanil should be titrated after tracheal intubation. Because of the rapid onset and short duration of its action, the infusion rate can be increased or decreased safely. Remifentanil is an effective agent in obtunding the stress response to tracheal intubation and surgery. Due to its synergistic effect with hypnotic agents, sevoflurane, isoflurane or propofol, it should be reduced carefully to prevent excessive depth of anesthesia. BIS values should be monitored closely. Remifentanil seems to be as potent as fentanyl. Prior to emergence from general anesthesia using remifentanil, postoperative pain management should be considered. NSAIDs or a long acting opioid could be administered.     

Recovery and cognitive function after fentanyl or remifentanil administration for carotid endarterectomy

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare recovery and restoration of cognitive function after fentanyl-propofol or remifentanil-propofol anesthesia administration in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, prospective study. SETTING: Department of Anesthesiology, University hospital. PATIENTS: Seventy patients with ASA physical statuses II and III (53 men and 17 women) undergoing elective carotid endarterectomy. INTERVENTIONS: Anesthetic technique and drugs were identical in the 2 groups, with the exception of remifentanil and fentanyl administration. Induction of anesthesia was obtained with a bolus dose of propofol (1-2 mg/kg), maintenance was achieved with a propofol infusion according to hemodynamics and nitrous oxide/oxygen (FIO(2), 0.50). Muscle relaxation was achieved with rocuronium. The remifentanil group received 1 microg/kg of remifentanil as a single dose during the induction of anesthesia and 0.5 microg/kg per minute as an infusion throughout the procedure. The fentanyl group received 2 microg/kg of fentanyl as a single dose during the induction of anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS: Intraoperative hemodynamic adverse events were recorded. All patients were also evaluated with regard to their recovery and the restoration of their cognitive function, recording the immediate recovery times and using the Aldrete score 15 and 60 minutes after surgery and the Hasegawa scale 6 hours after surgery. For evaluation of postoperative pain, the Numeric Pain Scale (0-10) was used. MAIN RESULTS: Patients receiving remifentanil had significantly (P < .05) fewer episodes of intraoperative hypertension and needed nitroglycerine administration less frequently (P < .05) than those receiving fentanyl. Immediate recovery was significantly earlier (P < .05) with remifentanil (eye opening, 5.1 +/- 1.3 [remifentanil] and 7.2 +/- 3.7 [fentanyl] minutes; extubation time, 5.4 +/- 1.9 [remifentanil] and 7.8 +/- 4.1 [fentanyl] minutes). The Hasegawa Dementia Scale scores 6 hours after surgery and Aldrete scores 15 and 60 minutes after surgery did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Pain levels were also similar for patients taking remifentanil and fentanyl. CONCLUSIONS: Although intraoperative hemodynamics were better preserved and immediate recovery was more rapid with remifentanil, overall postoperative recovery and restoration of cognitive functions as well as postoperative pain intensity seem to be similar for patients receiving remifentanil and for those receiving fentanyl combined with propofol for carotid endarterectomy operations.     

Target-controlled infusion anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil compared with manually controlled infusion anesthesia in mastoidectomy surgeries

Target-controlled infusion (TCI) system is increasingly used in anesthesia to control the concentration of selected drugs in the plasma or at the site of drug effect (effect-site). The performance of propofol TCI delivery when combined with remifentanil in patients undergoing elective surgeries has been investigated. Our aim in this study was to assess the anesthesia profile of the propofol and remifentanil target controlled infusion (TCI) anesthesia as compared to the manually controlled infusion (MCI), in mastoidectomy surgery, where a bloodless field is of utmost importance to the surgeon. Sixty patients, aged 18-60 years ASA I-II enrolled in the study, were divided into two equal groups. Group MCI received propofol and remifentanil by conventional-dose-weight infusion method, and Group TCI received propofol 4 microg/ml and remifentanil 4 ng/ml as effect-site target concentration. The hemodynamic variability, recovery profile, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), surgeons satisfaction were assessed. Results were analyzed by SPSS version 11.5. The two groups were comparable with respect to age, ASA class, sex, weight, basal vital signs, operation time. The blood pressure and pulse were above desired levels in some data points in the MCI Group (P < or = 0.05). The PACU stay time to reach Aldret score of 10 was longer in the MCI Group (42.54 +/- 8 vs 59.01 +/- 6 min) (P < or = 0.05). The PONV was more common in the MCI Group (P < or = 0.05). Surgeon's satisfaction of the surgical field showed no significant differences except when described as "good", more common in the TCI Group. TCI is capable to induce and maintain anesthesia as well as MCI. In some stages of anesthesia, the TCI control of vital signs are better than the MCI. In some stages of anesthesia, the TCI control of vital signs are beter than the MCI. Recovery profile and complication rate and surgeon's satisfactions are more acceptable in the TCI than in the MCI Group.     

Assessment of depth of anesthesia and postoperative respiratory recovery after remifentanil- versus alfentanil-based total intravenous anesthesia in patients undergoing ear-nose-throat surgery

BACKGROUND: The authors investigated whether total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with precalculated equipotent infusion schemes for remifentanil and alfentanil would ensure appropriate analgesia and that remifentanil would result in better recovery characteristics. METHODS: Forty consenting patients (classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III) scheduled for microlaryngoscopy were randomized to receive, in a double-blind manner, either remifentanil (loading dose 1 microg/kg; maintenance infusion, 0.25 microg x kg(-1) x min-1) or alfentanil (loading dose, 50 microg/kg; maintenance infusion, 1 microg x kg(-1) x min-1) as the analgesic component of TIVA. They were combined with propofol (loading dose, 2 mg/kg; maintenance infusion, 100 microg x kg(-1) min(-1)). To insure an equal state of anesthesia, the opioids were titrated to maintain heart rate and mean arterial pressure within 20% of baseline, and propofol was titrated to keep the bispectral index (BIS) less than 60. Neuromuscular blockade was achieved with succinylcholine. Drug dosages and the times from cessation of anesthesia to extubation, verbal response, recovery of ventilation, and neuropsychological testing, orientation, and discharge readiness were recorded. RESULTS: Demographics, duration of surgery, and anesthesia were similar between the two groups. Both groups received similar propofol doses. There were no difference in BIS values preoperatively (mean, 96), intraoperatively (mean, 55), and postoperatively (mean, 96). Recovery of BIS and times for verbal response did not differ. At 20, 30, and 40 min after terminating the opioid infusion, the peripheral oxygen saturation and respiratory rate were significantly higher in the remifentanil group compared with the alfentanil group. CONCLUSIONS: When both the hypnotic and analgesic components of a TIVA-based anesthetic are administered in equipotent doses, remifentanil provides a more rapid respiratory recovery, even after brief surgical procedures, compared with alfentanil.