A comparison of patient-controlled sedation using either remifentanil or remifentanil-propofol for shock wave lithotripsy

Comparison of Single Target-Controlled Infusion Pump-Delivered Mixed Propofol and Remifentanil with Two Target-Controlled Infusion Pumps-Delivered Propofol and Remifentanil in Patients Undergoing Breast Cancer Surgery-A Prospective Study

Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with remifentanil and propofol (RP) is considered to be an ideal type of general anesthesia (GA) for pediatric and adult patients undergoing medical procedures. However, delivery of an RP mixture by target-controlled infusion (TCI) for GA in surgical procedures has not been described. We investigated the merit of this approach for breast cancer surgery. Eighty-four patients (n = 42 per group) were randomly allocated to propofol and remifentanil either delivered by separate TCI pumps (S group) or in an RP mixture by a single TCI pump (M group). Dosages were adjusted based on the bispectral index (BIS) and the analgesia nociception index (ANI). The primary outcomes were adequate anesthesia (BIS 40-60 and ANI 50-70, respectively), acceptable hemodynamic fluctuations (<30% of baseline) with less frequent TCI pump adjustments, bolus injections of anesthetics, and total consumption of anesthetics during the procedure. The secondary endpoints included time of emergence from anesthesia, patient satisfaction, postoperative pain, rescue with opioids, and adverse events. The characteristics of patients, hemodynamic parameters, BIS and ANI scores, duration of surgery, anesthesia, and emergence were not significantly different between groups. The adjustment frequency of TCI was significantly higher in the S group (3 (range 0-6) vs. 2 (0-6) times; p = 0.005). The total dosage of anesthetics, pain rating, patient satisfaction, need for opioids postoperatively, and incidence of adverse events were not significantly different. We have demonstrated that this RP mixture provided adequate hypnotic and analgesic effects under BIS and ANI monitoring in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery within 1 h.

Prospective evaluation of remifentanil-propofol mixture for total intravenous anesthesia: A randomized controlled study

Application of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) may be considered as unpractical when compared with inhalational anesthesia. Although it is mostly not recommended, mixing intravenous agents is popular in clinical practice. The aim of the present study was to investigate the suitability of using remifentanil-propofol mixture (MIXTIVA) for TIVA. Adult patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists grade of I-II scheduled for elective thyroidectomy were randomly allocated to 3 groups (n=32 for each) to receive TIVA with remifentanil and propofol infusions separately (control group, Group I) or with MIXTIVA infusion that contained remifentanil/propofol at a proportion of 2/1,000 or 3/1,000 (remifentanil concentration, 20 or 30 µg/ml in 1% propofol in Group II or Group III, respectively). The extubation time (the primary outcome of the study), the orientation time and number of patients in whom intraoperative hypotension, hypertension or bradycardia episodes were encountered during anesthesia were comparable among the groups. The mean remifentanil infusion rate in Group III was significantly higher than that in the other groups. The mean propofol infusion rates and mean bispectral index (BIS) scores during anesthesia were comparable among groups. Hypotension accompanied with a high BIS was encountered in one patient in Group III. In conclusion, compared to the standard TIVA technique using separate drug infusions, MIXTIVA infusion used for thyroidectomies did not result in any statistically significant difference in recovery and clinical outcomes. This technique may be considered as a practical implementation for busy ambulatory centers performing general anesthesia. The present study was retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (trial registration no. NCT04394897).

Safety of applying midazolam-ketamine-propofol sedation combination under the supervision of endoscopy nurse with patient-controlled analgesia pump in colonoscopy

AIM

To compare the results of midazolam-ketamine-propofol sedation performed by an endoscopy nurse and anaesthetist during colonoscopy in terms of patient satisfaction and safety.

METHODS

American Statistical Association (ASA) I-II 60 patients who underwent colonoscopy under sedation were randomly divided into two groups: sedation under the supervision of an anaesthetist (SSA) and sedation under the supervision of an endoscopy nurse (SSEN). Both groups were initially administered 1 mg midazolam, 50 mg ketamine and 30-50 mg propofol. Continuation of sedation was performed by the anaesthetist in the SSA group and the nurse with a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump in the SSEN group. The total propofol consumption, procedure duration, recovery times, pain using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and satisfaction score of the patients, and side effects were recorded. In addition, the patients were asked whether they remembered the procedure and whether they would prefer the same method in the case of re-endoscopy.

RESULTS

Total propofol consumption in the SSEN group was significantly higher (P < 0.05) than that in the SSA group. When the groups were compared in terms of VAS score, recovery time, patient satisfaction, recall of the procedure, re-preference for the same method in case of re-endoscopy, and side effects, there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between the two groups. No long-term required intervention side effects were observed in either group.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy sedation in ASA I-II patients can be safely performed by an endoscopy nurse using PCA pump with the incidence of side effects and patient satisfaction levels similar to sedation under anaesthetist supervision.

Safety of remifentanil in transsphenoidal surgery: A single-center analysis of 540 patients

Although some studies have examined the efficacy and safety of remifentanil in patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures, none has examined its safety in transsphenoidal operations specifically. In this study, all transsphenoidal operations performed by a single author from 2008 to 2015 were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate the safety of remifentanil in a consecutive series of patients. During the study period, 540 transsphenoidal operations were identified. Of these, 443 (82.0%) patients received remifentanil intra-operatively; 97 (18.0%) did not. The two groups were well-matched with regard to demographic categories, comorbidities, and pre-operative medications (p>0.05), except pre-operative tobacco use (p=0.021). Patients were also well-matched with regard to radiographic features and surgical techniques. Patients who received remifentanil were more likely to harbor a macroadenoma (78.1% vs. 67.0%, p=0.025), and had slightly longer anesthesia time on average (269.2minvs. 239.4min, p=0.024). All pathologic diagnoses were well-matched between the two groups, except that patients receiving remifentanil were more likely to harbor a non-functioning adenoma (46.5% vs. 26.8%, p<0.001). Analysis of post-operative complications showed no significant difference between patients who received remifentanil and those who did not, and length of stay and prevalence of ICU stay did not differ between the two groups. In a well-matched series of 540 patients undergoing transsphenoidal surgery, remifentanil was found to be a safe anesthetic adjunct. There were no significant differences in post-operative hospital course or complications in patients who did and did not receive intra-operative remifentanil.

Procedural sedation and analgesia for respiratory-gated MR-HIFU in the liver: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Previous studies demonstrated both pre-clinically and clinically the feasibility of magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) ablations in the liver. To overcome the associated problem of respiratory motion of the ablation area, general anesthesia (GA) and mechanical ventilation was used in conjunction with either respiratory-gated energy delivery or energy delivery during induced apnea. However, clinical procedures requiring GA are generally associated with increased mortality, morbidity, and complication rate compared to procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA). Furthermore, PSA is associated with faster recovery and an increased eligibility for non- and mini-invasive interventions.

METHODS

In this study, we investigate both in an animal model and on a small patient group the kinetics of the diaphragm during free-breathing, when a tailored remifentanil/propofol-based PSA protocol inducing partial respiratory depression is used. Subsequently, we demonstrate in an animal study the compatibility of the resulting respiratory pattern of the PSA protocol with a gated HIFU ablation in the liver by direct comparison with gated ablations conducted under GA. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were performed for statistical analysis of non-perfused and necrosed tissue volumes. Duty cycles (ratio or percentage of the breathing cycle with the diaphragm in its resting position, such that acoustic energy delivery with MR-HIFU was allowed) were statistically compared for both GA and PSA using student's t tests.

RESULTS

In both animal and human experiments, the breathing frequency was decreased below 9/min, while maintaining stable vital functions. Furthermore an end-exhalation resting phase was induced by this PSA protocol during which the diaphragm is virtually immobile. Median non-perfused volumes, non-viable volumes based on NADH staining, and duty cycles were larger under PSA than under GA or equal.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that MR-HIFU ablations of the liver under PSA are feasible and potentially increase the non-invasive nature of this type of intervention.

Comparison of the effects of patient controlled analgesia (PCA) using dexmedetomidine and propofol during septoplasty operations: a randomized clinical trial

Introduction

Septoplastical surgery to correct septum deviation can be performed under either local or general anesthesia. During local anesthesia, sedation helps to provide minimum anxiety/discomfort. Our aim was to evaluate the effects of patient-controlled analgesia using dexmedetomidine and propofol on sedation level, analgesic requirement, and patient satisfaction.

Study design

A prospective, randomized-parallel clinical study.

Methods

Fifty patients undergoing septoplastical surgery at our university hospital were randomized into two groups. A nasopharyngeal cotton tampon soaked in 0.25 % adrenaline solution was placed, and 1 mg midazolam and 1 mcg/kg fentanyl were applied 5 min before the injections of a surgical local anesthetic. Loading dose was 0.5 mg/kg propofol (Group I) and 1 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine (Group II). The sedation was sustained by a bolus dose of 0.2 mg/kg and continuous basal infusion dose of 0.5 mg/kg/h propofol in Group I, or by a bolus dose of 0.05 µg/kg and continuous basal infusion dose of 0.4 mcg/kg/h dexmedetomidine in Group II. The primary outcomes were patient satisfaction via patient-controlled anesthesia and analgesic demand. Secondary outcomes were sedation level of patients under local anesthesia.

Results

In Group II, SpO₂ levels were significantly higher than in Group I. Intraoperative and postoperative analgesic requirements were lower in Group II than in Group I. There were no statistically significant differences in patient satisfaction, hemodynamic parameters, nausea and vomiting between the two groups.

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine can be used safely as an analgesic and sedation drug in septoplastic surgery.

Patient-controlled sedation with propofol/remifentanil versus propofol/alfentanil for patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy, a randomized, controlled double-blind study

CONTEXT

Many techniques are used for sedation of colonoscopies. Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) is utilizing many drugs or drug combinations.

AIMS

The aim of this study is to compare the safety and feasibility of propofol/remifentanil versus propofol/alfentanil given to sedate patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopies through a patient-controlled technique.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

Controlled randomized and double-blind study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 80 patients were randomly divided into two groups; PA group received a combination of propofol/alfentanil and PR group received propofol/remifentanil combination. Patients were monitored for heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), oxygen saturation, and Ramsay sedation scale (RSS). Times of the following events were recorded; initiation of sedation, insertion and removal of the colonoscope, recovery and discharge. Five intervals were calculated; time to sedation, procedure time, postprocedure time, procedure room time, and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) time. Endoscopist and patient satisfaction scores were obtained.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

Unpaired Student's t-test was used to compare between the two groups. Paired Student's t-test was used to compare baseline readings with readings after 30 min of sedation in the same group when needed.

RESULTS

Both groups showed slowing of the HR and decrease in mean arterial BP. HR and mean arterial BP were significantly lower 5 and 10 min after initiation of sedation in PR group when compared with PA group. Both HR and mean arterial BP returned to presedation readings 30 min after initiation of sedation in PR group but not in PA group. No differences between the two groups concerning oxygen saturation, RSS, endoscopist and patient satisfaction scores. Postprocedure and PACU times were significantly prolonged in PA group.

CONCLUSION

PCS with either remifentanil/propofol or alfentanil/propofol for patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy is safe and feasible. Remifentanil/proofol has more beneficial advantages in this setting secondary to its more rapid clearance.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine and midazolam for monitored anesthesia care combined with tramadol via patient-controlled analgesia in endoscopic nasal surgery: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, clinical study

Abstract.

BACKGROUND

Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) may be applied for septoplasty or endoscopic sinus surgery in which an adequate sedation and analgesia without respiratory depression are desired for comfort of both the patient and the surgeon. Several combinations with different agents have been used for this purpose in these patients. However, analgesic properties for these agents have not been reported.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the analgesic and sedative effects of dexmedetomidine or midazolam infusion combined with tramadol that was used via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), and to document the effects of these drugs on early cognitive functions.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double-blind, clinical study enrolled patients undergoing septoplasty or endoscopic sinus surgery at the Abant Izzet Baysal University Hospital, Bolu, Turkey, between February and September 2006. Patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio into 1 of 2 groups: the dexmedetomidine group (group D) patients received IV dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg for 10 minutes followed by continuous infusion of 0.5 μg/kg · h(-1); and the midazolam group (group M) patients were administered a loading dose of IV midazolam 40 μg/kg for 10 minutes followed by infusion at the rate of 50 μg/kg · h(-1). A 1-minute bolus dose of IV tramadol (1.5 mg/kg) was administered in both groups 10 minutes after the administration of the primary drug, and continued via infusion using a PCA device. After baseline measurements, systolic arterial pressure (SAP), diastolic arterial pressure (DAP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation, and rate of respiration were recorded after the loading dose of study drug, after the bolus tramadol dose, at 10-minute intervals during the operation, and twice in the recovery rooms; 5 minutes after arrival and 5 minutes before discharge. Verbal rating score (VRS) and Ramsay sedation score were determined at baseline (after surgery was started), every 10 minutes thereafter until the end of the operation, and 2 times during recovery. All patients were assessed with the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised at baseline (preoperatively) and 4 hours after the operation.

RESULTS

Seventy patients were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: group D (sex, male/female, 23/12; mean [SEM] age, 32.53 [2.07] years; mean [SEM] weight, 73.03 [2.41] kg) or group M (sex, male/female, 21/14; mean [SEM] age, 34.43 [1.83] years; mean [SEM] weight, 67.90 [2.32] kg). All hemodynamic parameters (SAP, DAP, MAP, HR) were significantly higher in group M compared with group D from the onset of the surgery to discharge time (P < 0.05). Pain and sedation scores were similar in both groups, but the amount of PCA-administered rescue tramadol was significantly higher in group M (P = 0.001). A higher, though not statistically significant, prevalence of adverse events (ie, hypotension, bradycardia, and perioperative nausea and vomiting) were observed in group D. Postoperative logical verbal memory and digit span values were significantly higher in group D when compared with group M (P < 0.05). Postoperative digit span and visual reproduction scores were significantly higher than preoperative values in group D (P < 0.05). Postoperative personality functioning scores were significantly higher than preoperative values in group M (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on VRS, Ramsay sedation scores, and surgeon and anesthesiologist satisfaction scores, dexmedetomidine or midazolam combined with tramadol PCA provided adequate analgesia and sedation in these adult patients undergoing septoplasty or endoscopic sinus surgery with MAC. A significantly larger amount of rescue tramadol was used by group M, suggesting that a better analgesic effect was achieved with dexmedetomidine.

Comparison of propofol-remifentanil versus propofol-ketamine deep sedation for third molar surgery

This study aimed to compare continuous intravenous infusion combinations of propofol-remifentanil and propofol-ketamine for deep sedation for surgical extraction of all 4 third molars. In a prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled study, participants received 1 of 2 sedative combinations for deep sedation for the surgery. Both groups initially received midazolam 0.03 mg/kg for baseline sedation. The control group then received a combination of propofol-remifentanil in a ratio of 10 mg propofol to 5 μg of remifentanil per milliliter, and the experimental group received a combination of propofol-ketamine in a ratio of 10 mg of propofol to 2.5 mg of ketamine per milliliter; both were given at an initial propofol infusion rate of 100 μg/kg/min. Each group received an induction loading bolus of 500 μg/kg of the assigned propofol combination along with the appropriate continuous infusion combination . Measured outcomes included emergence and recovery times, various sedation parameters, hemodynamic and respiratory stability, patient and surgeon satisfaction, postoperative course, and associated drug costs. Thirty-seven participants were enrolled in the study. Both groups demonstrated similar sedation parameters and hemodynamic and respiratory stability; however, the ketamine group had prolonged emergence (13.6 ± 6.6 versus 7.1 ± 3.7 minutes, P = .0009) and recovery (42.9 ± 18.7 versus 24.7 ± 7.6 minutes, P = .0004) times. The prolonged recovery profile of continuously infused propofol-ketamine may limit its effectiveness as an alternative to propofol-remifentanil for deep sedation for third molar extraction and perhaps other short oral surgical procedures, especially in the ambulatory dental setting.

The comparison of sedation quality, side effect and recovery profiles on different dosage of remifentanil patient-controlled sedation during breast biopsy surgery

BACKGROUND

The patient-controlled sedation (PCS) allows for rapid individualized titration of sedative drugs. Propofol has been the most widely used IV adjuvant, during the monitored anesthesia care (MAC). This study was designed to compare the sedation quality, side effect and recovery of the propofol alone, and propofol-remifentanil combination, using PCS for breast biopsy.

METHODS

Seventy five outpatients, undergoing breast biopsy procedures with local anesthesia, were randomly assigned to receive propofol alone (group P), propofol-25 ug/ml of remifentanil (group PR25), and propofol-50 ug/ml of remifentanil (group PR50), using PCS. Pain visual analogue scores (VAS) and digit symbol substitution test (DSST), Vital signs, bi-spectral index (BIS) and observer assessment of alertness and sedation (OAA/S) score were recorded.

RESULTS

Apply/Demand ratio in the group PR50 had a significant increase over the other groups (P < 0.05). The incidence of excessive sedation and dizziness were significantly more frequent in the group PR50 (P < 0.05). BIS and OAA/S score significantly decreased in the group PR25, PR50 at 15 min after the operation, the end of surgery (P < 0.05). At 5 min after the start of PCS, patients in the group PR25 and PR50 gave significantly less correct responses on the DSST than that of the group P (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the propofol alone, intermittent bolus injection of propofol-remifentanil mixture could be used, appropriately, for the sedation and analgesia during MAC. The group PR25 in a low dose of remifentanil has more advantages in terms of sedation and satisfaction because of the group PR50's side effects.

Alfentanil and patient-controlled propofol sedation - facilitate gynaecological outpatient surgery with increased risk of respiratory events

BACKGROUND

Widespread use of patient-controlled sedation (PCS) demands simplicity and a predictable outcome. We evaluated patients' safety and ease of use of PCS for gynaecological outpatient procedures.

METHODS

In a prospective double-blind study, 165 patients were randomized to use propofol or propofol with alfentanil as PCS combined with local anaesthetic for pain control. Data on cardiopulmonary function, consciousness, and need for interventions were collected at baseline and every fifth minute. The surgeons' evaluation of the ease and the duration of the procedure were recorded.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-five patients used PCS for the entire procedure, 76 patients propofol, and 79 patients propofol/alfentanil. Fifteen procedures in the propofol group were limited or could not be done, compared with four in the propofol/alfentanil group (P = 0.02). The duration of surgery was not affected. The addition of alfentanil affected respiratory function compared with the propofol group: five patients compared with none were manually ventilated (P = 0.03), and two thirds, compared with a quarter, were given supplementary oxygen as their saturation decreased below 90% (P < 0.001). Overall cardiovascular stability was maintained. The propofol group had deeper conscious sedation as measured by the bispectral index (P = 0.03), but all patients could be roused. In the propofol/alfentanil group, five patients became apnoeic and could not be roused.

CONCLUSIONS

PCS using propofol alone supports patients' safety, as the addition of alfentanil increased the need for specific interventions to maintain respiratory stability. However, alfentanil increases the feasibility of the procedure, as complementary doses of propofol were not required.

Patient-controlled sedation with propofol and remifentanil for ERCP: a randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND

Deep sedation with propofol and an opioid is commonly used for ERCP but is associated with increased risk and may require the presence of an anesthesiologist. Delivery of propofol and a short-acting, potent opioid analgesic remifentanil by patients to themselves (patient-controlled sedation, PCS) could be another option. Comparative studies with propofol PCS for ERCP are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To compare PCS with propofol/remifentanil to anesthesiologist-managed propofol sedation.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled human trial.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

This study involved 80 patients presenting for elective ERCP.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized to PCS with propofol/remifentanil (PCS group) or anesthesiologist-managed propofol sedation (propofol infusion group). Sedation level was estimated every 5 minutes throughout the procedure by using Ramsay and Gillham sedation scores. The total amount of propofol was calculated at the end of the procedure. Endoscopist and patient satisfaction with the procedures was evaluated with a structured questionnaire.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Patient vital signs, amount of consumed propofol, sedation levels, and degree of endoscopist and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

PCS was successful with 38 of 40 (95%) ERCP patients. In the PCS group, the mean (±standard deviation) level of sedation was markedly lighter and propofol consumption significantly smaller (175±98 mg) than in the propofol infusion group (249±138 mg) (P<.01). Degrees of patient and endoscopist satisfaction were equally high in both groups. All of the patients preferred the same sedation method should a repeat ERCP be required.

LIMITATIONS

Single-center study.

CONCLUSION

PCS with propofol/remifentanil is a suitable and well-accepted sedation method for ERCP. Anesthesiologist-managed propofol sedation with constant propofol infusion is associated with unnecessary deep sedation without any impact on the degree of patient or endoscopist satisfaction. Further larger-scale studies are needed to assess the safety of PCS in ERCP patients. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01079312.).

Meta-analysis of the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs vs. opioids for SWL using modern electromagnetic lithotripters

PURPOSE

Clinical studies produce conflicting results on pain relief for shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids in pain relief for SWL powered by an electromagnetic generator.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed and all randomized controlled trials comparing NSAIDs and opioids in pain relief for SWL using modern electromagnetic lithotripters were included in the analysis. Data from 3 trials (244 patients) were pooled. The primary outcome measure was adequate analgesia, defined as "if no additional pain relief was used". The difference in the proportion of patients with adequate anesthesia was compared between the NSAIDs and opioids groups as an odds ratio and odds ratio were pooled across the 3 trials with a fixed effects model.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between using NSAIDs and opioids for pain relief during SWL using modern electromagnetic lithotripters (odds ratio 0.886, 95% CI 0.446-1,760, p = 0.730).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis shows that in relieving pain during SWL using modern electromagnetic lithotripters NSAIDs are as effective as opioids.

Manual versus target-controlled infusion remifentanil administration in spontaneously breathing patients

BACKGROUND

The combination of propofol-remifentanil for procedural deep sedation in spontaneously breathing patients is characterized by the frequent incidence of side effects, especially respiratory depression. These side effects may be due to either the drug combination or the drug delivery technique. Target-controlled infusion (TCI) might optimize drug delivery. In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study in patients undergoing elective colonoscopy, we thus tried to answer two questions: first, if adding remifentanil to propofol surpasses the disadvantages of the combination of these two products, and second, if administration of remifentanil via TCI decreases the incidence of side effects, compared to manually controlled administration.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive remifentanil via manually controlled continuous infusion (MCI) (0.125 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) for 2 min followed by a continuous infusion of 0.05 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)), TCI remifentanil (1 ng/mL), or placebo (normal saline either as TCI or manual infusion of equivalent rate). All patients received TCI propofol, adjusted to a target concentration level that provided deep sedation in which patients were not responsive to verbal commands, but maintained spontaneous ventilation without assistance.

RESULTS

Significantly more patients in the placebo group showed movement, cough and hiccup, which transiently interfered with the examination. There were no clinically significant differences in hemodynamic or recovery variables among all groups. Remifentanil administered via TCI resulted in a decrease in propofol requirements. The incidence of hypopnea and apnea was less frequent when remifentanil was administered via TCI compared to MCI (TCI n = 7, MCI n = 16, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The combination of remifentanil and propofol for deep sedation in spontaneously breathing patients, offered better conditions for colonoscopy than propofol used as a single drug. Remifentanil administered via TCI resulted in a decrease in propofol dosing and in a lower incidence in apnea and respiratory depression (TCI n = 7, MCI n = 16, P < 0.05), compared to manually controlled administration of remifentanil.

Recent advances in patient-controlled sedation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Advances in minimally invasive procedures have resulted in an increased demand for procedural sedation. Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) has been in clinical use for almost 20 years, but has not been reviewed in over 10 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

Advances in microprocessor technology, increased demand for procedural sedation in a cost-conscious environment, and the availability of readily titratable pharmacologic agents together stimulated the development of alternative sedation practices. Continued research into the neurobiology of pain perception and the placebo effect has also played a role. PCS and patient-maintained sedation, primarily with propofol, have emerged as intriguing clinical alternatives to traditional sedation based in part on extensions of traditional PCA models.

SUMMARY

PCS has been applied to a wide variety of procedures, but systems that can be applied 'off-the-shelf' are not easy to tune. New approaches to PCS may address these limitations. Better understanding of the psychology of sedation may lead to better patient acceptance of PCS.

Comparison of alfentanil and remifentanil for the use of patient controlled sedation under local anesthesia during ear, nose and throat surgery

BACKGROUND

This study was conducted to compare the effects of alfentanil and remifentanil on patient controlled sedation (PCS).

METHODS

60 patients scheduled for ear, nose and throat surgery under local anesthesia were randomly allocated to Group P (n = 20, propofol 10 mg/ml), Group A (n = 20, propofol 10 mg/ml with alfentanil 500 microg/ml) and Group R (n = 20, propofol 10 mg/ml with remifentanil 10 microg/ml). Without a basal rate, bolus was set to 2 ml with one minute of lockout time.

RESULTS

A total of 57 patients were included in this study. Group A was found to have a lower blood pressure and pulse rate than group R. Group R showed a lower PCS dose upto an OAA/S (Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale) value of 4 and a higher OAA/S prior to surgery than group P. Group P was found to have a higher blood pressure and respiration rate than Group A. During PCS, patient anxiety was significantly decreased in all groups. In addition, there was no differences among groups in the level of pain during the perioperative period, delivery/attempt ratio, satisfaction of the patient and surgeon, and number of patients required to undergo the same PCS technique again. The frequency of side effects of PCS, which included pain on injection, transient hypertension, hypotension, desaturation and oversedation, were similar among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation of patients who underwent ear, nose and throat surgery under local anesthesia using PCS with propofol alone or alfentanil or remifentanil revealed no differences in safety, effectiveness, complications or satisfaction of the patients and surgeons.

Remifentanil and the brain

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Remifentanil is an ultra-short-acting opioid, increasingly used today in neuroanesthesia and neurointensive care. Its characteristics make remifentanil a potentially ideal agent, but previous data have cast a shadow on this opioid, supporting potentially toxic effects on the ischemic brain. The aim of the present concise review is to survey available up-to-date information on the effects of remifentanil on the central nervous system.

METHOD

A MEDLINE search within the past seven years for available up-to-date information on remifentanil and brain was performed.

RESULTS

Concise up-to-date information on the effects of remifentanil on the central nervous system was reported, with a particular emphasis on the following topics: cerebral metabolism, electroencephalogram, electrocorticography, motor-evoked potentials, regional cerebral blood flow, cerebral blood flow velocity, arterial hypotension and hypertension, intracranial pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure, cerebral autoregulation, cerebrovascular CO(2) reactivity, cerebrospinal fluid, painful stimulation, analgesia and hyperalgesia, neuroprotection, neurotoxicity and hypothermia.

CONCLUSION

The knowledge of the influence of remifentanil on brain functions is crucial before routine use in neuroanesthesia to improve anesthesia performance and patient safety as well as outcome.

The analgesic effect of inhalational Entonox for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a non-invasive procedure that allows urinary stones to be fragmented using acoustic shock waves. The impact of the shock waves causes transient stinging pain at the entry site as well as deep visceral discomfort, requiring analgesia during the procedure. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of Entonox and pethidine for pain relief during outpatient ESWL. We randomized 150 outpatients undergoing elective ESWL into three groups of 50 patients, each group receiving inhalational Entonox, intravenous pethidine, or inhalational compressed air during ESWL. Quantitative evaluation of pain was performed according to a visual analogue scale (VAS), before and after the intervention. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and paired t tests were used to compare VAS scores in the three groups, before and after the intervention. Entonox and pethidine decreased the pain score significantly, while compressed air did not. There was no significant difference between pain relief by Entonox and pethidine. This study demonstrates for the first time that inhalational Entonox is an effective analgesic regimen for ESWL. Entonox can be regarded as an appropriate alternative to analgesics like opioids in relieving pain during ESWL.

Nurse-administered propofol sedation: a review of current evidence

This article highlights a highly controversial practice issue referred to as nurse-administered propofol sedation, which affects registered nurses as well as advanced practice nurses in many different practice settings across the United States. Amid varied advice from professional organizations and state licensing boards, a thorough and systematic review of the current evidence provides insight into the question of safety associated with the practice. The evidence examined includes position statements from professional organizations and state boards, information from the United States Food and Drug Administration and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, and published research since 1999. The body of evidence demonstrates diverse positions; however, the empirical evidence in the author's opinion unanimously supports nurse-administered propofol sedation as a safe practice in nonintubated adult patients. Under research conditions, participants had a low incidence of untoward events and were adequately rescued with no intubations required and no deaths reported.

Anesthesiologist-controlled versus patient-controlled propofol sedation for shockwave lithotripsy

PURPOSE

To compare anesthesiologist-controlled sedation (ACS) with patient-controlled sedation (PCS), with respect to propofol requirements, sedation, and recovery, in patients undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for urinary calculi.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients were randomized, in this double-blind study, to receive propofol sedation according to one of two regimens: infusion of 200 microg.kg(-1) .min(-1) for ten minutes reduced thereafter to 50-150 microg.kg(-1) .min(-1) titrated by an anesthesiologist, according to patient response (group ACS), or propofol administered by patient-controlled analgesia (bolus dose 300 microg.kg(-1), lockout interval three minutes, no basal infusion), (group PCS). All patients received midazolam 10 microg.kg(-1) iv and fentanyl 1 microg.kg(-1) iv preoperatively, followed by fentanyl infused at a rate of 0.5 microg.kg(-1) .hr(-1) throughout the procedure. Sedation and analgesia were assessed using the A-line ARX index and visual analogue scale, respectively. Psychomotor recovery and readiness for recovery room discharge were assessed using the Trieger dot test and postanesthesia discharge score, respectively. Patient satisfaction was assessed on a seven-point scale (1-7).

RESULTS

In comparison to group PCS, patients in group ACS received more propofol (398 +/- 162 mg vs 199 +/- 68 mg, P < 0.001), were more sedated (A-line ARX index: 35 +/- 16 vs 73 +/- 16, P < 0.001), experienced less pain (visual analogue scale: 0 +/- 0 vs 3 +/- 1, P < 0.001), and were more satisfied (median [Q1, Q3]: 7 [7, 7] vs 6 [6, 7], P < 0.001). In contrast, patients in group PCS had faster psychomotor recovery (Trieger dot test median [Q1, Q3]: 8 [4, 16] vs 16 [12, 26] dots missed, P = 0.002) and achieved postanesthesia discharge score >/=9 earlier (median [Q1, Q3]: 40 [35, 60] vs 88 [75, 100] min, P < 0.001) compared with group ACS.

CONCLUSION

In comparison to PCS for patients undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, propofol/fentanyl ACS is associated with increased propofol administration, deeper sedation levels, and greater patient comfort. However, ACS is associated with slower recovery and a longer time to meet discharge criteria, when compared to PCS.

Remifentanilversus propofol for radio frequency treatment of atrial flutter

PURPOSE

Radio frequency treatment in cardiology generates short acute pain during the heating process. The present study evaluates two techniques used for sedation/analgesia for this procedure.

METHODS

Two groups of 20 patients each were studied prospectively. Patients were randomized to receive sedation for the procedure using either a patient-controlled analgesia device with remifentanil (Group R), or a target controlled infusion of propofol (Group P). Patients in Group R had a basal infusion of remifentanil 0.02-0.04 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) with self administered bolus doses of 0.3 microg x kg(-1) i.v. every minute as required, with a delivery time greater than 30 sec. Patients in Group P had an initial plasma target concentration set at 3-4 microg x mL(-1).

RESULTS

Sedation scores were significantly higher in Group P, and two patients required supplementation with remifentanil and insertion of an laryngeal mask airway. Pain scores were higher in Group R, and two patients experienced muscular rigidity, one with transient apnea. Systolic blood pressure decreased significantly in Group P, and at the end of the procedure, PaCO(2) values were higher in that group (P < 0.01). Recovery time was significantly longer in Group P. Patient and physician satisfaction scores were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A basal infusion of remifentanil plus remifentanil patient controlled analgesia and target controlled infusion of propofol were adequate but not optimal techniques for sedation/analgesia for radio frequency treatment of atrial flutter.

Remifentanil as a Single Drug for Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: A Comparison of Infusion Doses in Terms of Analgesic Potency and Side Effects

This randomized, double-blind study was designed to evaluate analgesic effectiveness and side effects of two remifentanil infusion rates in patients undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for renal stones. We included 200 patients who were administered remifentanil either 0.05 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) (n = 100) or 0.1 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) (n = 100) plus demand bolus of 10 microg of remifentanil via a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device. No other sedating drugs were given. The frequencies of PCA demands and deliveries were recorded. Arterial blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate were recorded throughout the procedure; postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), dizziness, itching, agitation, and respiratory depression were measured posttreatment. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores were taken preoperatively, directly postoperatively, and 30 min after finishing the procedure. There were no statistically significant differences in the frequency of PCA demands and delivered boluses or among perioperative VAS scores. The extent of PONV and frequency of dizziness and itching immediately after and dizziness 30 min after the end of treatment were significantly reduced in the smaller dose group. We conclude that a remifentanil regimen of 0.05 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) plus 10 microg demands is superior to 0.1 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) plus demands, as there was no difference in the VAS scores recorded between groups and it has a less frequent incidence of side effects in patients receiving ESWL.

IMPLICATIONS

Remifentanil is an appropriate analgesic choice for patients undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) therapy, as it has both fast onset and offset times. We studied remifentanil as a sole drug for ESWL and have shown that an infusion rate of 0.05 microg x kg-1 x min-1 plus patient-controlled analgesia demands of 10 microg provides adequate analgesia and has significantly less side effects than a dose of 0.1 microg x kg-1 x min-1 plus 10 microg demands.

Remifentanil for Fetal Immobilization and Maternal Sedation During Fetoscopic Surgery: A Randomized, Double-Blind Comparison with Diazepam

Obstetric endoscopy procedures are routinely performed at our institution to treat selected complications of monochorionic twin gestation. We perform these procedures under combined spinal epidural anesthesia plus maternal sedation. In the absence of general anesthesia, fetal immobilization is not achieved. We hypothesized that remifentanil would induce adequate maternal sedation and provide fetal immobilization, which is equal or superior to that induced by diazepam. Fifty-four second trimester pregnant women were included in this randomized, double-blind trial. After combined spinal epidural anesthesia, maternal sedation was initiated using either incremental doses of diazepam or a continuous infusion of remifentanil. Maternal sedation, hemodynamics, side effects, and fetal hemodynamics and immobilization were evaluated before, during, and for 60 min after surgery. Remifentanil produced adequate maternal sedation with mild but clinically irrelevant respiratory depression (respiratory rate 13 +/- 4 breaths/min and Pco(2) 38.6 +/- 4 mm Hg at 40 min of surgery), whereas diazepam resulted in a more pronounced maternal sedation but no respiratory depression (respiratory rate 18 +/- 3 breaths/min and Pco(2) 32.7 +/- 3 mm Hg at 40 min of surgery). Compared with diazepam, fetal immobilization with remifentanil occurred faster and was more pronounced, resulting in improved surgical conditions; the number of gross body and limb movements was 12 +/- 4 (diazepam) versus 2 +/- 1 (remifentanil) at 40 min of surgery. Because of this, the mean (range) duration of surgery was significantly shorter in the remifentanil-treated patients, 60 (54-71) min versus 80 (60-90) min in the diazepam group. We conclude that remifentanil produces improved fetal immobilization with good maternal sedation and only minimal effects on maternal respiration.

Recent developments in patient-controlled analgesia

Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has become the gold standard for acute pain management since it was first introduced 20 years ago, and its merits have been discussed in quite a large number of publications. This review summarizes the more recent developments, such as new application devices and strategies, including intranasal, spinal, and regional PCA; patient-controlled sedation; experience with children and elderly people; and some data from chronic pain situations. Analyzing PCA literature from 2001 onwards confirms the author's long belief that the PCA principle ("WYNIWYG": what you need is what you get) was the most important aspect of a patient-controlled strategy, more or less independent of the type of drug or machine. Discovering this principle has changed the understanding of pain and suffering.

Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia using remifentanil in a child with Axenfeld-Rieger syndrome

Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) using intravenous opioids is increasing in popularity for children aged 5 years and over. To our knowledge there are no reports on the use of PCA in children with remifentanil in the postoperative period. We report successful use of remifentanil for intravenous (IV) PCA in a child scheduled for suprasellar arachnoid cystectomy with Axenfeld-Rieger syndrome who needed good postoperative analgesia because of accompanying serious problems.

[Remifentanil is an effective alternative to propofol for patient-controlled analgesia during digestive endoscopic procedures]

PURPOSE

Unlike propofol, the self-administration of remifentanil for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopies has never been evaluated formally. We wanted to compare the efficacy and tolerance of patient self-administration of remifentanil vs propofol during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHOD

This prospective randomized, single-blinded study, included 77 patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients were divided into two groups: group R received remifentanil (5 microg.kg(-1).hr(-1) infusion, 25 microg boli, refractory period of five minutes) and group P received propofol (2 mg.kg(-1).hr(-1) infusion, 0.5 mg.kg(-1) boli, refractory period of ten minutes). A 1 mg.kg(-1) bolus of propofol was administered before the procedure began in cases of marked anxiety. Additional boli of 25 microg of remifentanil or 0.5 mg.kg(-1) of propofol were administered when patients complained during the refractory period. The evaluation targeted analgesic efficacy during the procedure and patient satisfaction. The degree of sedation during the procedure and the occurrence of adverse reactions were analyzed.

RESULTS

Patient satisfaction was high and comparable in both groups, with the number of awake and oriented patients being significantly higher in group R. Hemodynamic and respiratory tolerance was comparable in both groups, despite two episodes of desaturation in group R. The incidence of nausea was significantly higher in group R.

CONCLUSIONS

The self-administration of remifentanil for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopies is as effective as the self-administration of propofol and can be offered to patients, especially when it is desirable that they remain conscious during the procedure.

Ureteroscopy: anesthetic considerations

Ureterorenoscopy (URS) is a vital procedure in the armamentarium of the modern-day urologist for the management of ureteral and renal pathology. With advances in ureteroscopic design and the introduction of short-acting anesthetics, URS can now be performed efficiently with high patient satisfaction and minimal posteroperative recovery time. Recently, URS under local anesthesia, with or without sedation, has become a viable option for a high percentage of correctly selected patients. For those patients who then require deeper sedation or general anesthesia, anesthesia can be induced quickly with the new agents such as remifentanil, propofol, and desflurane, without a prolonged postoperative recovery period.

Dexmedetomidine in combination with morphine PCA provides superior analgesia for shockwave lithotripsy

PURPOSE

To compare the analgesic effects of dexmedetomidine/morphine with those of tramadol/midazolam in patients undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) for urinary calculi.

METHODS

Sixty patients were randomized to receive either dexmedetomidine 1 micro g*kg(-1) iv followed by 0.5 micro g*kg(-1)*hr(-1) infusion together with morphine patient-controlled analgesia [(PCA); 2 mg bolus, five minutes lockout, 2 mg*hr(-1) infusion; (Group DEX)], or tramadol 1.5 mg*kg(-1) pre-mixed with midazolam 30 micro g*kg(-1) iv followed by tramadol PCA [20 mg bolus, five minute lockout, 20 mg*hr(-1) infusion; (Group TRA)]. Pain was assessed at baseline and every 15 min thereafter. Patients' and urologist's satisfaction with analgesia and sedation were determined on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (extremely dissatisfied) to 7 (extremely satisfied). Patient's discharge time was also documented.

RESULTS

Visual analogue scale scores over time were consistently lower in Group DEX compared with Group TRA (P = 0.001). Patients' satisfaction with analgesia (5 +/- 1 vs 4 +/- 2, P = 0.012) and with sedation (6 +/- 1 vs 5 +/- 1, P = 0.020), and urologist's satisfaction (6 +/- 1 vs 4 +/- 2, P = 0.001) were all higher amongst Group DEX patients compared with Group TRA. There was no difference between discharge times of patients in Group DEX compared with those in Group TRA [85 (60,115) min vs 65 (40,95) min, P = 0.069].

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine in combination with morphine PCA provided better analgesia for ESWL and was associated with higher patients' and urologist's satisfaction when compared with a tramadol/midazolam PCA combination.

Patient-controlled analgesia and sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Variations in pain threshold, drug tolerance, and visceral sensitivity among patients make it difficult to anticipate the appropriate dose of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Propofol was recently introduced for sedation in endoscopy and has a rapid onset and offset of action, making it an ideal substance for patient-controlled administration. Several controlled trials have demonstrated that during colonoscopy, patient-controlled application of propofol alone or in combination with various opioids is effective,safe, and yields high patient satisfaction. Target-controlled infusion of propofol has shown encouraging results for prolonged upper endoscopy procedures like endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography.

Dolasetron prophylaxis reduces nausea and postanaesthesia recovery time after remifentanil infusion during monitored anaesthesia care for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

BACKGROUND

Remifentanil is used as an analgesic for different procedures performed during monitored anaesthesia care. Opioid-induced nausea and vomiting can be troublesome.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double-blind study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of prophylaxis with dolasetron in reducing the frequency of postoperative nausea and duration of discharge time. Forty urological patients, undergoing elective ambulatory extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) received randomly either dolasetron 12.5 mg i.v. (Group 1) or placebo (Group 2) 10 min before a patient-adapted continuous infusion of remifentanil 0.15-0.4 micro g kg(-1) min(-1) was administered. Frequency and intensity (VAS 0-100 mm) of nausea, retching, and vomiting were assessed by patients and blinded investigators during and after the procedure.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics, baseline values, duration of ESWL, and total dose of remifentanil did not differ between groups. The frequency (Group 1/Group 2; 20/55%; P<0.05) and mean (SD) maximal intensity [15 (9)/45 (14) mm; P<0.05] of nausea during 24 h was significantly reduced after dolasetron and discharge times in Group 1 were less than Group 2 [22 (14)/45 (28) min; P<0.05].

A comparison of anaesthetic techniques for shock wave lithotripsy: the use of a remifentanil infusion alone compared to intermittent fentanyl boluses combined with a low dose propofol infusion

This study examined the intra-operative and postoperative characteristics of a remifentanil infusion alone, or intermittent fentanyl bolus admistration combined with a propofol infusion, for the anaesthetic management of patients undergoing shock wave lithotripsy. One of the key parameters investigated was the time to discharge. Fifty patients scheduled for extracorporeal shock wavelithotripsy (ESWL) were randomly allocated to receive either a continuous infusion of 0.2-0.4 micro g.kg-1.min-1 of remifentanil (Group 1) or a bolus of 3 micro g.kg-1 fentanyl followed by a continuous infusion of propofol at a rate of 2 mg.kg-1.h-1 with additional boluses of 0.05 mg fentanyl administered as required (Group 2). Both anaesthetic techniques were found to provide satisfactory analgesia and intra-operative conditions for ESWL. However, patients in the remifentanil Group 1 showed a higher incidence of nausea (52% vs. 0%, p < 0.01) and retching (36% vs. 0%, p < 0.01) 120 min following ESWL compared to Group 2. This resulted in prolonged discharge times (p < 0.01) in this group. We found that remifentanil used as the sole agent failed to demonstrate any advantage over the combination of fentanyl/propofol with regard to rapid recovery and discharge following anaesthesia for extracorporal shock wave lithotripsy.