Reduction of pain on injection of propofol: a comparison of fentanyl with remifentanil

Is propofol injection pain really important to patients?

Background

Propofol injection pain (PIP) has been adequately studied during the past decades. However, patients’ opinion on this problem and the incidence of patients’ recall of this brief discomfort are still unknown. Thus, we conducted this study to know the patients’ perspectives on PIP and provide useful information about the incidence of recall of PIP under our routine general anesthesia.

Methods

Five hundred preoperative questionnaires were distributed to patients who were scheduled for elective open thyroidectomy under general anesthesia from May 2016 to July 2016. They were asked to rank ten possible adverse effects associated with general anesthesia from their most undesirable to their least undesirable effect. Patients who completed the preoperative questionnaires were asked whether they could recall PIP and to grade the severity of PIP on the first postoperative day.

Results

A total of 448 preoperative questionnaires were returned and analyzed with an efficient rate of 89.6%. Incisional pain was ranked as most undesirable, followed (in order) by vomiting, gagging on the tracheal tube, nausea, sore throat, propofol injection pain, shivering, intravenous puncture pain, and anxiety. The majority (91.5%) of surveyed patients could not recall any discomfort or pain during anesthetics injection. Of those who could recall PIP, 89.5% grade it as mild pain, 7.9% moderate pain, and 2.6% severe pain.

Conclusions

Most of patients undergoing elective open thyroidectomy in our hospital viewed PIP as a relatively minor problem. The incidence of recall of PIP was low and the majority of those who recalled regarded it as mild, temporary and acceptable pain. However, further investigations into propofol injection pain may be warranted as patients’ perspectives on propofol injection pain and its severity may differ between patient populations.

Preclusion of pain on injection with propofol: Evaluating the effects of lignocaine or fentanyl pretreatment

BACKGROUND

Propofol (2,6-di-isopropylphenol) used for the induction of anesthesia often causes mild to severe pain or discomfort on injection, for which various methods have been tried, but with conflicting results.

OBJECTIVE

The present study involved pretreatment with lignocaine, fentanyl and placebo for prevention of pain on propofol injection to determine the difference in efficacy of fentanyl 100 μg compared with lignocaine 40 mg.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-three participants of either sex, between 18 and 60 years of age, belonging to ASA physical status 1 and 2, undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia, were randomized into three equal groups of 21 participants. They received, intravenously, either lignocaine (20 mg/mL) or fentanyl (50 μg/mL) or placebo (normal saline 2 mL) pretreatment before the propofol injection.

RESULTS

The three groups were comparable with respect to age, height, weight, sex and ASA physical status. The incidences of pain on pretreatment drug injection was higher in the fentanyl group (33.3%) compared with lignocaine and normal saline (P<0.05). The lowest incidence of pain on propofol injection was observed in the lignocaine pretreatment group (14.3%) compared with fentanyl (42.9%) and normal saline (71.4%) (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in adverse skin reaction within groups. In the normal saline pretreatment group, 38.1% of the participants experienced severe pain, compared with 9.5% in the fentanyl (P<0.05) group; none with lignocaine. The number needed to treat was 2 in the lignocaine pretreatment group compared with 4 in the fentanyl pretreatment group.

CONCLUSION

Compared with fentanyl, lignocaine pretreatment was more effective in preventing pain on propofol injection.

Multimodal Analgesia to Prevent Propofol-Induced Pain: Pretreatment with Remifentanil and Lidocaine Versus Remifentanil or Lidocaine Alone

BACKGROUND

Propofol is well-known for its pain on injection. Premixture with lidocaine or pretreatment with remifentanil reduces injection pain. A multimodal approach might offer additional mitigation of propofol injection pain.

METHODS

In a randomized, prospective, double-blind study of 156 patients, we compared the incidence and severity of propofol pain among three groups. Patients in the lidocaine group (n = 54) received 2% lidocaine premixed with propofol (40 mg lidocaine in 180 mg propofol). Patients in the remifentanil group (n = 50), received pretreatment with remifentanil 2 microg x kg(-1) IV over 30 s. Patients in the combination group (n = 52) received both lidocaine and remifentanil.

RESULTS

A significant decrease in the overall incidence of propofol pain at induction was achieved in the combination group (9.6%) compared with that in the remifentanil group (36%) and the lidocaine group (35%) (P = 0.003). The incidence of severe and moderate pain was also significantly different in the combination group (0%), compared with that in the remifentanil (18%) and lidocaine groups (12.9%) (P < 0.02). Similar, statistically significant differences among the three groups were achieved concerning recalled pain in the postanesthesia care unit.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of two different analgesic modalities, remifentanil and lidocaine completely abolishes moderate and severe pain associated with propofol injection, and significantly reduces the incidence of mild pain when compared with each drug used alone.

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.