Remifentanil versus alfentanil as analgesic adjuncts during placement of ophthalmologic nerve blocks.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Short-acting opioids are often used prior to the placement of ophthalmologic nerve blocks. This study examines whether remifentanil would provide superior analgesia compared with alfentanil, without oversedation or prolonged recovery when given either as a single dose over 30 seconds or as a single dose followed by a continuous infusion, in a dose ratio of 1:7 (remifentanil:alfentanil). METHODS: Seventy-nine ASA I-III patients scheduled for elective ophthalmologic surgery participated in this multicenter, double-blind study. Patients were randomized into three groups: remifentanil (remifentanil 1 microg/kg and placebo infusion); remifentanil infusion (remifentanil 1 microg/kg and infusion of 0.2 microg/kg/min); and alfentanil (alfentanil 7 microg/kg and placebo infusion). Supplemental doses of the respective opioid were given as needed. RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent of patients in the remifentanil group were pain-free at the time of the block placement compared with 44% in the alfentanil group (P < .05). Eighty percent of patients in the remifentanil infusion group were pain-free. Although the occurrence of respiratory depression (14%) was higher in the remifentanil infusion group, it was short-lived (< or = 5 minutes) and resolved spontaneously. More than 89% of patients were awake and alert prior to surgery, and > or = 85% bypassed the phase I recovery area. Nausea and vomiting were rare. CONCLUSIONS: Remifentanil 1 microg/kg results in superior analgesia compared with alfentanil 7 microg/kg when used during the placement of ophthalmologic nerve blocks. The combination of a single dose of remifentanil followed by a continuous infusion was equally effective but resulted in a higher incidence of respiratory depression.     

Remifentanil for intraoperative analgesia during the endoscopic surgical treatment of pituitary lesions

AIM: The authors have evaluated remifentanil for intraoperative analgesia in endonasal endoscopic surgery for pituitary lesions. METHODS: Experimental design: a perspective, randomized and comparative study between remifentanil and fentanyl for intraoperative analgesia was performed in an operating room of the neurosurgical department at University. Sixty patients of both sexes were studied and randomly divided into 2 groups. Patients were premedicated with fentanyl 0.15 microg.kg(-1) and atropine 0.01 microg.kg(-1) (group F) or with atro-pine and remifentanil 0.25 microg.kg(-1) min-1 (group R); induction was with propofol 2.0 microg.kg(-1) and maintenance with titrated infusion of propofol and for intraoperative analgesia, fentanyl as bolus injection of 1.0-1.5 microg.kg(-1) (group F) or a titrated infusion of remifentanil (group R). The following parameters were studied: MAP, HR, bleeding, awakening times, adverse effects and VAS. RESULTS: Much more stable hemodynamic parameters during surgery in patients treated with remifentanil; labetalol was administered in 10% of patients in group F; no significant differences as regards the adverse effects and VAS. Faster awakening time was obtained in the remifentanil group as compared with the fentanyl group. CONCLUSIONS: Remifentanil analgesia (mean dose of 0.37 microg.kg(-1).min-1) in patients undergoing endonasal endoscopic surgery of the sellar region provides a more efficacious cardiocirculatory control with reduced bleeding and faster psychosensorial recovery.     

Remifentanil for analgesia during retrobulbar nerve block placement

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patients undergoing eye surgery under regional anaesthesia often require concomitant medication for analgesia and comfort. Remifentanil, with its ultra-short acting-profile, may be useful to reduce pain during retrobulbar nerve block for cataract surgery. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind study to compare the efficacy of remifentanil for analgesia during retrobulbar nerve block placement. Ninety patients undergoing cataract surgery were randomly divided to receive either remifentanil 0.3 microg kg(-1) (n = 45) or an equivalent volume of saline (n = 45). The injection was administered within 30 s in both groups. Patients rated their amount of pain on a 10 cm visual analogue scale. Respiratory frequency, oxygen saturation, cardiac rhythm and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were recorded. RESULTS: The mean visual analogue score in the Remifentanil group was 2.56; it was 5.51 in the Saline group (P = 0.001, U-test). Three patients developed bradycardia and three had PONV in the Remifentanil group. Two patients developed tachycardia and one had PONV in the Saline group. No patient developed respiratory depression. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing retrobulbar block placement for eye surgery, 0.3 microg kg(-1) remifentanil over 30 s significantly reduced their reported pain. In addition, remifentanil did not increase the risk of untoward side-effects.     

Prevention of withdrawal movement associated with injection of rocuronium in children: comparison of remifentanil, alfentanil and fentanyl

BACKGROUND: We compared the efficacy of remifentanil, alfentanil and fentanyl in reducing withdrawal movement associated with the injection of rocuronium in children. METHODS: In total, 164 ASA physical status I or II pediatric patients, aged 1-14 years, were randomly assigned to four treatment groups: group C received saline; group R, remifentanil 1 microg/kg; group A, alfentanil 10 micro/kg; and group F, fentanyl 2 microg/kg. Treatments were injected over 30 s, followed by thiopental 5 mg/kg. At 90 s after the start of the study drug injection, rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg was injected over 10 s. The patient's response to the injection of rocuronium was graded on a four-point scale in a double-blinded manner. RESULTS: The incidence of withdrawal movement was 89.5% in group C, 70.3% in group F, 36.3% in group A and 7.2% in group R. The incidence of generalized movement (grade 4) was 86.9% in group C, 58.5% in group F, 15.9% in group A and 2.4% in group R. CONCLUSION: Remifentanil, alfentanil and fentanyl all reduced the incidence of withdrawal movement when administered 90 s before the injection of rocuronium compared with saline. Remifentanil was the most effective, followed by alfentanil. Fentanyl was less effective but significantly different from the saline in reducing withdrawal movement in children.     

The effects of remifentanil and alfentanil-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) on the endocrine response to abdominal hysterectomy

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of remifentanil with alfentanil as a part of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) on plasma concentrations of cortisol, insulin, and glucose, and hemodynamic responses in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind study. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: 24 ASA physical status I female patients scheduled for abdominal hysterectomy. INTERVENTIONS: Premedicated patients were randomly allocated to receive either remifentanil-propofol (Group R) or alfentanil-propofol (Group A). The loading dose of the study drug was administered over 60 seconds (remifentanil l microg kg(-l) or alfentanil 10 microg kg(-l)) followed by a continuous infusion (remifentanil 0.2 microg kg(-l) min(-l) or alfentanil 0.5 microg kg(-l) min(-l)). In both groups, propofol was administered until loss of consciousness and maintained with a propofol infusion rate of 100 microg kg(-l) min(-l). After induction of anesthesia, all patients were manually ventilated by mask with O2-air mixture for 20 minutes. Then rocuronium 0.6 mg kg(-l) was given for tracheal intubation. MEASUREMENTS: Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded. Plasma concentrations of cortisol, insulin, and glucose were measured during anesthesia and in the recovery room. MAIN RESULTS: In Group R, MAP and HR were lower after tracheal intubation and skin incision than in Group A (p < 0.05). Plasma cortisol concentrations decreased from baseline values at 20 minutes after induction, after tracheal intubation, and skin incision in Group R (p < 0.001). Plasma concentrations of cortisol and glucose increased from baseline values at 30 minutes after skin incision and continued to increase in both groups (p = 0.001). Plasma concentrations of cortisol, insulin, and glucose did not differ between groups at all sampling times. CONCLUSION: Remifentanil provided better hemodynamic stability than alfentanil during anesthesia and surgery. However, both remifentanil and alfentanil had similar effects on the stress endocrine response to abdominal hysterectomy.     

Prevention of rocuronium-induced withdrawal movement in children: a comparison of remifentanil with alfentanil

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to compare the efficacy of remifentanil and alfentanil without the venous occlusion technique in preventing the withdrawal response associated with rocuronium injection in children. METHODS: One hundred and twenty children aged between 3 and 10 years were randomly allocated into one of four groups to receive either i.v. remifentanil 0.5 microg.kg(-1) (remi 0.5 group), remifentanil 1 microg.kg(-1) (remi 1.0 group), alfentanil 15 microg.kg(-1) (alfentanil group) or saline 5 ml (saline group). Anesthesia was induced with 2.5% thiopental sodium 5 mg.kg(-1) and the test drug was injected over 30 s. One minute later, 1% rocuronium 0.6 mg.kg(-1) was injected over 5 s and the response was recorded. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded on arrival in the operating room, before and 1 min after tracheal intubation. RESULTS: The incidence of withdrawal movement in the saline group (93%) was significantly higher than that in the remi 0.5, remi 1.0, and alfentanil groups (53%, 17%, and 20%, respectively) (P < 0.05). The incidence in the remi 1.0 and alfentanil groups was significantly less than that in the remi 0.5 group (P < 0.05). After intubation, MAP and HR were significantly higher in the saline group than that in remi 1.0 and alfentanil groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both remifentanil 1 microg.kg(-1) and alfentanil 15 microg.kg(-1) can be used to prevent rocuronium-associated withdrawal movement in children because they are equally effective and attenuate the increase in MAP and HR after intubation.     

Prevention of pain on injection of propofol: a comparison of remifentanil with alfentanil in children

AIM: Propofol has a high incidence of pain on injection, particularly when a vein on the back of hand is used. Administration of lidocaine, either before or mixed with propofol remains the most widely used method to attenuate this pain. The use of opioids such as alfentanil and fentanyl has been found to decrease pain induced by propofol injection. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of different doses of remifentanil and alfentanil in minimizing the pain caused by propofol. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, healthy premedicated children between the age group of 5-12 years admitted for adenotonsillectomy were randomly allocated to one of 6 treatment groups. Group I: remifentanil 0.25 microg kg(-1); Group II: remifentanil 0.50 microg kg(-1); Group III: alfentanil 15 microg kg(-1); Group IV: alfentanil 20 microg kg(-1) 60 s prior to propofol mixed with 1 mL of 0.9% normal saline; Group V: lidocaine 1 mL of 1% (10 mg) added to 100 mg of propofol and Group VI: normal saline. During the injection of propofol (3 mg kg(-1)) pain perception was assessed with a four-point behavioural scale: none, mild, moderate, or severe. RESULTS: There were 52 subjects in Group I, 51 in Group II, 49 in Group III, 52 in Group IV, 52 in Group V and 52 in Group VI; 63.46% of patients in Group I, 39.21% in Group II, 38.77% in Group III, 36.53% in Group IV, 38.46% in Group V and 84.61% in Group VI experienced pain. Statistically, Groups II, III, IV and V were significantly better than placebo in the reduction of propofol pain (P<0.0001). Groups II, III and IV significantly reduced the pain in comparison with Group I (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Pretreatment with intravenous remifentanil 0.5 microg kg(-1), alfentanil 15 microg kg(-1) and 20 microg kg(-1) were equally effective in reducing pain associated with propofol injection in children between the age group of 5-12 years.     

A comparison of the remifentanil and fentanyl adverse effect profile in a multicenter phase IV study

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the frequency of adverse effects of remifentanil and fentanyl in a large and diverse patient population. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, open-label study. SETTING: Multicenter study including academic and community hospitals. PATIENTS: 2,438 adult patients (1,496 outpatients and 942 inpatients) scheduled for elective surgical procedures under general endotracheal anesthesia of at least 30-minute duration. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous (IV) remifentanil (n = 1,229) 0.5 microg/kg/min for induction and tracheal intubation followed by an infusion rate of 0.25 microg/kg/min or fentanyl (n = 1,209) administered according to the anesthesiologist's usual practice. Anesthesia was maintained with propofol and/or isoflurane (with or without nitrous oxide) titrated according to protocol. Transition analgesia with either morphine or fentanyl was administered in the remifentanil and, at the anesthesiologist's discretion, in the fentanyl group. MEASUREMENTS: The overall nonspecific and specific (i.e., opioid-related) adverse effects were recorded. MAIN RESULTS: Remifentanil was associated with more intraoperative hypotension than fentanyl (p < 0.05). All four cases (0.3%) of muscle rigidity occurred in the remifentanil-treated outpatients. There were no significant differences between the two drugs with respect to other adverse events (i.e., episodes of hypertension, bradycardia, respiratory depression, and apnea). CONCLUSIONS: In the doses used, both remifentanil and fentanyl have a similar frequency of adverse effects except for the higher frequency of hypotension associated with the use of remifentanil.     

An inhalation bolus of sevoflurane versus an intravenous bolus of remifentanil for controlling hemodynamic responses to surgical stress during major surgery: a prospective randomized trial

We studied 120 patients scheduled for elective major thoracic or abdominal surgery, randomized into 2 groups: a Sevoflurane group (n = 63) and a Remifentanil group (n = 57). Heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) are indicative of sympathetic response to surgical stress. A positive response was defined as a 15% increase in the HR and MAP above baseline measurements. When a positive response occurred, in the Sevoflurane group we administered a bolus dose of 8% sevoflurane (fresh gas flow 6 L/min) and in the Remifentanil group, an IV bolus dose of remifentanil 1 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1), which was maintained until MAP and HR returned to baseline measurements (effective bolus). If, after a bolus dose, a decrease in MAP and/or HR of >15% occurred with respect to baseline values, the response was considered to be excessive. The bolus dose was ineffective in 4.8% of the responses in the Sevoflurane group and in 17.8% of the responses in the Remifentanil group (P < 0.05). In the Sevoflurane group, an excessive effect occurred in 12% of responses, and in 26.7% in the Remifentanil group (P < 0.05). An inhalation bolus of sevoflurane seems to be more effective than an IV remifentanil bolus during maintenance, with more effective control of hemodynamic responses to surgical stress. IMPLICATIONS: We compared an inhalation bolus of sevoflurane with remifentanil for managing hemodynamic responses to major abdominal or thoracic surgery. This prospective, randomized trial demonstrated better results with sevoflurane.     

Propofol anesthesia for craniotomy: a double-blind comparison of remifentanil, alfentanil, and fentanyl

For patients undergoing craniotomy, it is desirable to have stable and easily controllable hemodynamics during intense surgical stimulation. However, rapid postoperative recovery is essential to assess neurologic function. Remifentanil, an ultra-short-acting mu-opioid receptor agonist, may be the ideal agent to confer the above characteristics. In this prospective randomized study, we compared the hemodynamic stability, recovery characteristics, and the dose of propofol required for maintaining anesthesia supplemented with an infusion of remifentanil, alfentanil, or fentanyl in 34 patients scheduled for supratentorial craniotomy. With routine monitors in place, anesthesia was induced with propofol (2-3 mg/kg), atracurium (0.5 mg/kg), and either remifentanil (1 microg/kg), alfentanil (10 microg/kg), or fentanyl (2 micro/kg). The lungs were ventilated with O2/air to mild hypocapnia. Anesthesia was maintained with infusions of propofol (50-100 microg/kg/min) and either remifentanil (0.2 microg/kg/min), alfentanil (20 microg/kg/h), or fentanyl (2 microg/kg/h). There were no significant differences among the groups in the dose of propofol maintenance required, heart rate, or mean arterial pressure. However, the time to eye opening (minutes) was significantly shorter in the remifentanil compared to the alfentanil group (6+/-3; 21+/-14; P = 0.0027) but not the fentanyl group (15+/-9). We conclude that remifentanil is an appropriate opioid to use in combination with propofol during anesthesia for supratentorial craniotomy.     

Suppressive effects of remifentanil on hemodynamics in baro-denervated rabbits

PURPOSE: To elucidate mechanisms by which remifentanil, an ultra-short-acting mu-opioid receptor agonist, causes hypotension and bradycardia. METHODS: Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) and renal sympathetic nerve activity (RSNA) were measured and recorded after bolus injections of 1, 2 or 5 microg x kg(-1) of remifentanil in neuraxis intact (n=6 for each dose) and baro-denervated rabbits (n=6 for each dose). Arterial baroreflex sensitivity was assessed by depressor tests. An additional six baro-denervated animals received remifentanil, 5 microg x kg(-1) after pretreatment with naloxone, 40 microg x kg(-1). RESULTS: All values were expressed in % change from baseline. In the neuraxis intact animals, MAP and HR were decreased briefly immediately after remifentanil injection. RSNA was increased dose-dependently: 137 +/- 8% (mean +/- SE), 170 +/- 14% (P < 0.05) and 225 +/- 29% (P < 0.05) after 1, 2 and 5 microg x kg(-1) remifentanil, respectively. RSNA was increased even after MAP and HR had returned to baseline values. The depressor tests revealed that remifentanil did not attenuate arterial baroreflex sensitivity. In the baro-denervated animals, MAP and HR decreased gradually to 77 +/- 3% (P < 0.05) and 94 +/- 1% (P < 0.05), respectively 300 sec after 5 microg x kg(-1) remifentanil. At that time, increased RSNA (159 +/- 9%, P < 0.05) had returned to baseline. Pretreatment with naloxone in the baro-denervated animals abolished these changes. CONCLUSION: Remifentanil decreases HR and MAP by its central vagotonic effect and by stimulating peripheral mu-opioid receptors. These effects appear to be counteracted and masked by its central sympathotonic effect and by maintaining arterial baroreflex integrity.     

The effects of alfentanil or remifentanil pretreatment on propofol injection pain

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of alfentanil, remifentanil, and saline in minimizing the propofol injection pain. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind study. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: 175 ASA physical status I and II, adult female patients undergoing minor gynecological procedures with general anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: Unpremedicated patients were randomly allocated to one of four groups. Patients received 2 mL (1 mg) of alfentanil (n=43), 2 mL of remifentanil 0.01 mg (n = 43), 2 mL of remifentanil 0.02 mg (n=45), or 2 mL of saline (n=44) 30 seconds prior to administration 5 mL of propofol 1%. MEASUREMENTS: Patients were asked whether they had pain due to propofol injection. Their pain scores were evaluated with a Visual Analogue Scale. In the Postanesthesia Care Unit, frequency of postoperative nausea, vomiting, hypotension, and flushing were all determined. MAIN RESULT: The remifentanil and alfentanil groups showed significantly less frequency and severity of pain than the saline group (p <0.05). When the alfentanil group was compared with the remifentanil groups, significant differences in pain relief associated with injection of propofol (p <0.001) were noted. Remifentanil 0.02 mg relieved pain associated with injection of propofol more effectively than remifentanil 0.01 mg (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The remifentanil and alfentanil groups showed significantly less frequency and severity of pain than did the saline group. Remifentanil was effective in preventing propofol injection pain, and should be used at a dose of at least 0.02 mg for this purpose. Remifentanil may be an alternative drug for prevention of propofol injection pain.     

Assessment of tracheal intubating conditions in children using remifentanil and propofol without muscle relaxant

BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation in children can be achieved by deep inhalational anaesthesia or an intravenous anaesthetic and a muscle relaxant, suxamethonium being widely used despite several side-effects. Studies have shown that oral intubation can be facilitated safely and effectively in children after induction of anaesthesia with propofol and alfentanil without a muscle relaxant. Remifentanil is a new, ultra-short acting, selective mu-receptor agonist that is 20-30 times more potent than alfentanil. This clinical study was designed to assess whether combination of propofol and remifentanil could be used without a muscle relaxant to facilitate tracheal intubation in children. METHODS: Forty children (5-10 years) admitted for adenotonsillectomy were randomly allocated to one of two groups to receive remifentanil 2 microg.kg(-1) (Gp I) or remifentanil 3 microg.kg(-1) (Gp II) before the induction of anaesthesia with i.v. propofol 3 mg.kg(-1). No neuromuscular blocking agent was administered. Intubating conditions were assessed using a four-point scoring system based on ease of laryngoscopy, jaw relaxation, position of vocal cords, degree of coughing and limb movement. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) measured noninvasively before induction of anaesthesia to 5 min after intubation (seven time points). RESULTS: Tracheal intubation was successful in all patients without requiring neuromuscular blocking agent. Intubating conditions were clinically acceptable in 10 of 20 patients (50%) in Gp I compared with 18 of 20 patients (90%) in Gp II (P < 0.05). MAP and HR decreased in both groups after induction of anaesthesia (P < 0.01). Both HR and MAP were significantly lower in Gp II compared with Gp I after tracheal intubation (P < 0.01). No patient in the present study developed bradycardia or hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that remifentanil (3 microg.kg(-1)), administered before propofol (3 mg.kg(-1)) provides acceptable tracheal intubating conditions in children, and completely inhibited the increase in HR and MAP associated with intubation.     

Remifentanil provides better analgesia than alfentanil during breast biopsy surgery under monitored anesthesia care

PURPOSE: To compare the analgesic effects of remifentanil and alfentanil during breast biopsy under monitored anesthesia care (MAC). METHODS: Sixty patients received sedation with propofol (50 microg.kg(-1).min(-1)). After receiving a loading dose of opioid (either remifentanil 0.5 microg.kg(-1), or alfentanil 2.5 microg.kg(-1)), an infusion was initiated (remifentanil 0.05 microg.kg(-1).min(-1) or alfentanil 0.25 microg.kg(-1).min(-1)), and this was supplemented with local anesthetic infiltration. The pain was evaluated with a ten-point visual analogue scale (VAS) during local anesthetic infiltration and deep tissue dissection. Inadequate analgesia, defined as VAS scores > or = 5, was treated first with boluses of opioid (remifentanil group 10 microg or alfentanil group 50 microg) and if inadequate after two treatments with additional local anesthetic. Postoperative times were recorded including the times until discharge criteria were achieved and patient's actual discharge. RESULTS: The pain scores were similar between the two groups during the initial injections of local anesthetic in the breast, however, patients in the remifentanil group had lower mean pain scores during deep tissue dissection (2.3 vs 4.3, P < 0.01). Patients in the remifentanil group required fewer rescue doses of opioid (1.9 vs 3.6, P < 0.03) and local anesthetic (5 vs 15, P < 0.006). The two study groups had comparable speed of recovery. CONCLUSION: Remifentanil was a better opioid choice than alfentanil for breast biopsy under MAC at the doses studied, but it did not increase the rapidity in which patients recovered postoperatively.     

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.     

Anesthetic management of awake off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (ACAB) with remifentanil and thoracic epidural anesthesia

Two patients with total occlusion of the right internal carotid artery, were anesthetized for ACAB with remifentanil and thoracic epidural anesthesia. Case 1: A 71-year-old man with hypertension and diabetes mellitus underwent single-vessel ACAB under IV remifentanil analgesia, the dose of which was adjusted to 0.04-0.05 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1), along with an epidural infusion of 10 ml x hr(-1) of a mixture of 2% lidocaine and 2.5 microg x ml(-1) of fentanyl, the PaCO2 being maintained at 52-55 mmHg. When the patient felt pain, the remifentanil dose was elevated to 0.08 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) and PaCO2 increased to 60 mmHg. Case 2: A 66-year-old man with rheumatoid arthritis underwent ACAB for two grafts. An intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) was inserted preoperatively. The anesthetic method used was the same as in case 1, except for an additional right femoral block to provide anesthesia for extraction of the saphenous vein. Remifentanil was infused at 0.05 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) and PaCO2 maintained at 49-53 mmHg. In response to the patient's pain and movement, the remifentanil dose was increased to 0.07-0.10 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) and PaCO2 to 60 mmHg.     

A comparison of remifentanil and alfentanil for use with propofol in patients undergoing minimally invasive coronary artery bypass surgery

Most patients undergoing minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery can be awakened and tracheally extubated in the operating room. We have compared two techniques of total IV anesthesia in this patient population: 30 patients (aged 44 to 74 yr; 24 male) premedicated with temazepam were randomly assigned to receive either remifentanil-propofol or alfentanil-propofol. Anesthesia was induced with remifentanil 2 microg/kg or with alfentanil 40 microg/kg, with propofol, and maintained with remifentanil at 0.25 or 0.5 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) or alfentanil at 0.5 or 1 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1). The stable maintenance infusion rate of propofol was adjusted for age. Times to awakening and tracheal extubation were recorded. Postoperatively, IV morphine provided by patient-controlled analgesia was used for 48 h. Times to awakening and tracheal extubation (mean +/- SD) were shorter (P < 0. 01) in patients receiving remifentanil, and interpatient variations in times to awakening and tracheal extubation smaller (awakening 25 +/- 7 vs 74 +/- 32 min, and extubation 27 +/- 7 vs 77 +/- 32 min). Analysis of variance revealed that postoperative consumption of morphine was dependent on both the intraoperative opioid and the time elapsed after surgery (P < 0.05): patient-controlled analgesia morphine use during the first 3 h after awakening was more in patients receiving remifentanil (P < 0.01). Implications: Recovery of patients undergoing Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery is significantly shorter and more predictable after total IV anesthesia with remifentanil-propofol than with alfentanil-propofol, which may be important if the goal is that patients will be awakened and tracheally extubated in the operating room.     

Remifentanil vs alfentanil in the total intravenous anaesthesia for paediatric abdominal surgery

BACKGROUNDS: Our aim was to investigate whether total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) with remifentanil and alfentanil would ensure appropriate analgesia and recovery conditions in anaesthesia for children undergoing abdominal surgery. METHODS: Sixty children, scheduled for abdominal operations were randomized to receive, in a double-blind manner, either remifentanil (loading dose 1 microg x kg(-1); maintenance infusion, 0.25 microg x kg(-1) min(-1)) or alfentanil (loading dose 50 microg x kg(-1); maintenance infusion, 1 microg x kg(-1) min(-1)) as the analgesic component of TIVA. They were combined with propofol (loading dose, 2 mg x kg(-1); step 1 maintenance infusion, 10 mg x kg(-1) h(-1); step 2 maintenance infusion, 8 mg x kg(-1) h(-1); step 3 maintenance infusion, 6 mg x kg(-1) h(-1)) neuromuscular blockade was with mivacurium. Dose changes of the drugs, the times from cessation of anaesthesia to extubation, verbal responses, recovery of ventilation, orientation, and qualification for discharge from the postanaesthetic care unit (PACU) were recorded. RESULTS: Demographics, duration of surgery and anaesthesia were similar between the two groups. Times to extubation and stay in the PACU were significantly shorter in the remifentanil group compared with the alfentanil group. Quality of emergence (QE) from anaesthesia scale scores were higher in the remifentanil group compared with the alfentanil group. CONCLUSIONS: Remifentanil provides a more rapid recovery and adequate postoperative analgesia after TIVA for paediatric abdominal surgery, compared with alfentanil.     

Sufentanil, alfentanil, and fentanyl: impact on cerebrospinal fluid pressure in patients with brain tumors

In order to evaluate the safety of the new synthetic opioids, alfentanil and sufentanil, in neurosurgical patients, we administered sufentanil 1 microg/kg i.v., alfentanil 50 microg/kg i.v. followed by an infusion of 1 microg/kg/min, or fentanyl 5 microg/kg i.v. to 30 patients with supratentorial tumors anesthetized with nitrous oxide (N2O), 60% in O2. Lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure (CSFP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) responses were recorded for 10 min thereafter, while ventilation was held constant [mean PaCO2 = 36.1 +/- 1.0 mm Hg (SEM)]. There was no change in CSFP after fentanyl. In contrast, both sufentanil and alfentanil caused increases in CSFP, equal to 89 +/- 31 % SE (p < 0.05) and 22 +/- 5% (p < 0.05), respectively. MAP decreased after administration of each opioid. Peak decreases in cerebral perfusion pressure (MAP - CSFP) were 14 +/- 3% after fentanyl, 25 +/- 5% after sufentanil, and 37 +/- 3% after alfentanil. It is concluded that because sufentanil increased CSFP in patients who have brain tumors, it also may be contraindicated in other neurosurgical patients at risk for intracranial hypertension. Alfentanil may share this propensity, since CSFP increased despite a profound reduction in MAP. Among the three opioids evaluated, only fentanyl appears to be appropriate for supplementing N2O-2 anesthesia in patients who have compromised intracranial compliance.     

Remifentanil in obstetric analgesia: a dose-finding study

IV patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with remifentanil is a new approach in systemic opioid analgesia during labor. We determined the minimum effective dose of IV remifentanil by increasing the PCA bolus from 0.2 microg/kg with 0.2 microg/kg increments during a 60-min study period until the analgesia was considered adequate by the parturient. Twenty healthy parturients with singleton pregnancies participated in the study during the first stage of labor. Remifentanil hydrochloride was given IV via PCA over 1 min with a lockout time of 1 min. The parturient started the PCA bolus at the first subjective sign of uterine contraction. All 17 patients who completed the study reached adequate pain relief. The median effective PCA bolus was 0.4 microg/kg and consumption was 0.066 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1), with wide individual variation (0.2-0.8 microg/kg and 0.027-0.207 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1), respectively). The pain scores were reduced by a median of 4.2 (25th-75th percentiles, 3.1-5.2; P < 0.001) on an 11-point numeric scale. Although there was a wide individual variation in the dose required, remifentanil seems effective for labor analgesia. However, maternal oxygen desaturation, sedation, and reduced fetal heart rate beat-to-beat variability were observed frequently. There was wide individual variation in the dose required for effective labor analgesia. Potentially serious side effects, which were observed frequently during remifentanil analgesia, may limit remifentanil's use in obstetrics. IMPLICATIONS: We determined the minimum effective dose of patient-controlled IV remifentanil for labor analgesia. There was wide individual variation in the dose required for effective labor analgesia. Potentially serious side effects, which were observed frequently during remifentanil analgesia, may limit its use in obstetrics.