Tracheal intubation without muscle relaxants: remifentanil or alfentanil in combination with propofol

Paralysis Versus Non-Paralysis Anesthesia for Operative Laryngoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes between two standard-of-care anesthesia regimens for operative laryngoscopy: general anesthesia with a neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) versus remifentanil and propofol (non-NMBA).

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial at a tertiary care center. Patients were randomized to either anesthesia using rocuronium (NMBA) or with remifentanil/propofol infusion alone (non-NMBA). Intraoperative impressions, anesthesia data, and post-operative patient surveys were collected.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients who underwent suspension laryngoscopy from 2020 to 2022 were included (25 female, 36 male, ranging 20-81 years). Thirty patients were enrolled in the NMBA arm and 31 patients in the non-NMBA arm. Heart rate and mean arterial pressure were higher in the NMBA (p < 0.01). Patients in the non-NMBA group were more likely to require vasopressors (p = 0.04, RR = 3.08 [0.86-11.05]). Surgeons were more frequently satisfied with conditions in the NMBA group (86.7%) compared to the non-NMBA group (58.1%, p < 0.01). Procedures were more likely to be paused due to movement in the non-NMBA group (45.1%) compared to the NMBA group (16.6%, p < 0.03, RR = 2.26 [1.02-4.99]). Patients in the non-NMBA group were more likely to endorse myalgia the week after surgery (44%) compared to the NMBA group (8.3%, p < 0.01) and reported higher average pain levels on a 0-10 pain scale (3.7) compared to the paralysis group (2.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Anesthesia with rocuronium was associated with better intraoperative conditions and postoperative pain compared to anesthesia with remifentanil/propofol. Remifentanil/propofol were associated with lower blood pressure and suppression of laryngoscopy-associated tachycardia.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2 Laryngoscope, 133:2654-2664, 2023.

Assessment of remifentanil for rapid sequence induction and intubation in patients at risk of pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents compared to rapid-onset paralytic agents: study protocol for a non-inferiority simple blind randomized controlled trial (the REMICRUSH study)

Background

Rapid-onset paralytic agents are recommended to achieve muscle relaxation and facilitate tracheal intubation during rapid sequence induction in patients at risk of pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents. However, opioids are frequently used in this setting. The study’s objective is to demonstrate the non-inferiority of remifentanil compared to rapid-onset paralytic agents, in association with an hypnotic drug, for tracheal intubation in patients undergoing  procedure under general anesthesia and at risk of pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents.

Methods

The REMICRUSH (Remifentanil for Rapid Sequence Induction of Anaesthesia) study is a multicenter, single-blinded, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial comparing remifentanil (3 to 4 μg/kg) with rapid-onset paralytic agents (succinylcholine or rocuronium 1 mg/kg) for rapid sequence induction in 1150 adult surgical patients requiring tracheal intubation during general anesthesia. Enrolment started in October 2019 in 15 French anesthesia units. The expected date of the final follow-up is October 2021. The primary outcome is the proportion of successful tracheal intubation without major complications. A non-inferiority margin of 7% was chosen. Analyses of the intent-to-treat and per-protocol populations are planned.

Discussion

The REMICRUSH trial protocol has been approved by the ethics committee of The Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud-Ouest et Outre-Mer II and will be carried out according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The results of this study will be disseminated through presentations at scientific conferences and publications in peer-reviewed journals. The REMICRUSH trial is the first randomized controlled trial powered to investigate whether remifentanil with hypnotics is non-inferior to rapid-onset paralytic agents with hypnotic in rapid sequence induction of anesthesia for full stomach patients considering successful tracheal intubation without major complication.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03960801. Registered on May 23, 2019.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05192-x.

Comparison of intubating conditions after induction with propofol and remifentanil or sufentanil : Randomized controlled REMIDENT trial for surgical tooth extraction

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare tracheal intubation conditions after induction of anesthesia with a bolus of propofol-sufentanil or propofol-remifentanil and a rapid induction technique.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 70 patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification I‑II) undergoing outpatient surgery under general anesthesia with intubation for tooth extraction were randomly assigned to two groups in this double-blind study. Patients received either a bolus of remifentanil (3 μg/kg) or sufentanil (0.3 μg/kg) together with 2.5 mg/kg propofol for intubation. The primary outcome was the percentage of excellent intubation conditions and the secondary outcomes were the percentage of patients with a decrease of over 20% in mean arterial pressure (MAP) or heart rate (HR), time to achieve spontaneous respiration, time between the end of surgery and extubation and time to achieve an Aldrete score of 10. VAS pain score was >3 or having laryngeal pain 15 min after arriving in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Intubating conditions (perfect + good conditions) were significantly better with remifentanil than with sufentanil (88.5% vs. 68.6%; p = 0.01). When using remifentanil, the hemodynamic conditions were good. Using remifentanil did not significantly increase the pain score or the laryngeal pain in the recovery room. This was confirmed by no significant differences between the groups for morphine consumption. Remifentanil significantly decreased the time to achieve an Aldrete score of 10.

CONCLUSION

When intubation without muscle relaxants is required, intubating conditions are much better when a remifentanil bolus is used compared to a sufentanil bolus. The remifentanil/propofol rapid induction technique is a valuable technique to quickly intubate and achieve good conditions.

Using fentanyl and propofol for tracheal intubation during sevoflurane induction without muscle relaxants in children: A randomized prospective study

Context:

Tracheal intubation is frequently facilitated with sevoflurane induction without the use of muscle relaxants in children.

Aim:

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two different doses of propofol preceded by a fixed dose of fentanyl during sevoflurane induction on quality of tracheal intubation in children.

Settings and Design:

This was a prospective randomized study.

Subjects and Methods:

Ninety American Society of Anesthesiologists I-II children aged 2–6 years were randomly assigned to one of two equal groups to receive 2 μg/kg of fentanyl with 2 mg/kg of propofol (Group I) or 2 μg/kg of fentanyl with 3 mg/kg of propofol (Group II) during sevoflurane induction. The intubating conditions and hemodynamic responses were evaluated. The time from sevoflurane induction to loss of consciousness, to intravenous line insertion, and to intubation was measured. The occurrence of any adverse effect was recorded.

Statistical Analysis Used:

Results were analyzed using Student's t-test, paired t-test, and Chi-square test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

The incidence of excellent intubating conditions was achieved more significantly in Group II (41/45 patients, 91%) than that in Group I (31/45 patients, 69%) (P = 0.008) (95% confidence interval [CI] =0.39–0.8). Whereas, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the overall acceptable intubating conditions in Group I (40/45 patients, 89%) and Group II (43/45 patients, 96%) (P = 0.81) (95% CI = 0.71–1.31). No patient developed any adverse effect.

Conclusion:

The administration of 3 mg/kg propofol preceded by 2 μg/kg fentanyl provided a higher proportion of excellent intubating conditions compared with 2 mg/kg propofol preceded by 2 μg/kg fentanyl during sevoflurane induction in children without muscle relaxants.

Intubating conditions and side effects of propofol, remifentanil and sevoflurane compared with propofol, remifentanil and rocuronium: a randomised, prospective, clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Tracheal intubation without muscle relaxants is usually performed with remifentanil and propofol or sevoflurane. Remifentanil 1.0 to 4.0 μg·kg(-1) and propofol 2.0-3.0 mg·kg(-1) or sevoflurane up to 8.0 Vol% provide acceptable, i.e. excellent or good intubating conditions. We hypothesized that sevoflurane 1.0 MAC would provide acceptable intubating conditions when combined with propofol and remifentanil.

METHODS

Eighty-three patients to be intubated were randomised to two groups. The SEVO group received propofol 1.5 mg kg(-1), remifentanil 0.30 μg kg min(-1) and sevoflurane 1.0 MAC; the MR group received the same doses of propofol and remifentanil plus rocuronium 0.45 mg kg(-1). We evaluated intubation and extubation conditions, mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) and bispectral index (BIS). The vocal cords were examined for injury by videolaryngoscopy before and 24 hours after surgery.

RESULTS

ACCEPTABLE INTUBATING CONDITIONS WERE SEEN MORE FREQUENTLY WITH ROCURONIUM THAN WITH SEVOFLURANE: 97% versus 82%; p = 0.03; the subscore for vocal cords was comparable: 100% versus 98%. MAP before intubation decreased significantly compared with the MAP at baseline to the same extent in both groups; ephedrine IV was given in 15 (SEVO) versus 16 (MR) patients; p = 0.93. BIS at tracheal intubation was 27 (13-65) in the SEVO group, 29 (14-62) in the MR group; p = 0.07. Vocal cord injuries (oedema, haematoma) were similar: 4 patients in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall intubating conditions were better when rocuronium was used; the subscore for vocal cords was comparable. The incidence of side effects was the same in the two groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT 01591031.

Comparison of target-controlled infusion of sufentanil and remifentanil in blunting hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation

Background:

Maintaining blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) after laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation has always been a concern in injured patients. Opioids can attenuate or stop an increase in these two parameters if administered with proper doses or targets in target-controlled infusion (TCI). Remifentanil and sufentanil are widely used for this purpose because their cardiac side effects are low and, especially in traumatic patients, they are tolerated well. A comparison of the benefits and limitations of these two opioids in TCI is much needed. A literature review in electronic data bases revealed few results.

Methods:

40 normotensive patients were enrolled to this randomized clinical trial study. After BIS guided anesthesia with a target-controlled propofol infusion and muscle relaxation with cisatracurium, remifentanil and sufentanil were infused using TCI with 2 and 0.2 ng.ml-1 targets respectively. BP and HR were recorded for five data points and compared with Fischer's exact test.

Results:

Systolic, mean and diastolic arterial pressure and HR in different points of the study remained below baseline values but were out of control in some cases, however the out-of-control values showed significant difference between the two groups only for heart rate changes. The relative risk for producing out-of-control changes with remifentanil compared to sufentanil is significantly more than 1 for HR decrease.

Conclusions:

Sufentanil produced more common pre-intubation hypotension than remifentanil in propofol anesthetized patients but this hypotension disappeared sooner than remifentanil after tracheal intubation. Both opioids prevent an increase in BP and HR after tracheal intubation but the side effects (hypotension and bradycardia) may be a cause for concern (IRCT138710011361N3).

The effects of sevoflurane with propofol and remifentanil on tracheal intubation conditions without neuromuscular blocking agents

Background

Propofol and remifentanil are used for tracheal intubation in the absence of neuromuscular blocking agents. We hypothesized that the addition of sevoflurane to propofol and remifentanil would improve intubation conditions and provide hemodynamic stability.

Methods

Seventy-six patients scheduled for elective surgery were randomly allocated to be ventilated with either 4% (group I) or 7% sevoflurane (group II) after propofol injection (2 mg/kg). All patients received remifentanil (1 µg/kg) 30 seconds after administration of propofol. Ninety seconds after remifentanil was given, laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation were performed. Intubation conditions and hemodynamic changes were evaluated.

Results

The overall incidence of clinically acceptable intubation conditions was significantly higher in group II (92%) than group I (58%) (P = 0.001). Scores for vocal cord position, coughing, and limb movement were significantly better in group II (P < 0.05). Mean blood pressure remained significantly lower than the pre-induction level throughout the investigation in both groups (P < 0.001), but there was no incidence of bradycardia or hypotension requiring treatment.

Conclusions

Tracheal intubation without neuromuscular blocking agents can be achieved safely and reliably by adding 7% sevoflurane to propofol (2 mg/kg) and remifentanil (1 µg/kg).

Comparative evaluation of different doses of propofol preceded by fentanyl on intubating conditions and pressor response during tracheal intubation without muscle relaxants

BACKGROUND

The aim of our study was to determine the optimal dose of propofol preceded by fentanyl for successful tracheal intubation and to see its effectiveness in blunting pressor response in children aged 3-10 years.

METHODS

This prospective, double blind, randomized study was conducted on 60 ASA grade I and II children, between 3 and 10 years undergoing elective surgery who were divided into three groups of 20 each. The children received different doses of propofol (group I, 2.5 mg x kg(-1); group II, 3.0 mg x kg(-1); group III, 3.5 mg x kg(-1)) preceded by a fixed dose of fentanyl (3.0 microg x kg(-1)) 3 min earlier. The tracheal intubating conditions were graded based on scoring system devised by Helbo-Hensen et al. with Steyn modification which includes five criteria; ease of laryngoscopy, degree of coughing, position of vocal cords, jaw relaxation, and limb movement and graded on a 4-point scale. Heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and oxygen saturation changes were also noted.

RESULTS

Tracheal intubating conditions were acceptable in 25% of the patients in group I, while significantly higher (P < 0.001) in group II (80%) and in group III (90%). The pressor response was not effectively blunted in group I (17% increase in HR), while effectively blunted in groups II and III. A fall in cardiac output was seen in group III indicated by a decrease in MAP (16%) and HR (11%). No airway complications were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol 3 mg x kg(-1) (group II) preceded by fentanyl 3 microg x kg(-1) is the optimal dose combination in our study. It provides acceptable intubating conditions in 80% patients, blunts pressor response to intubation without significant cardiovascular depression.