Postoperative Results after Desflurane or Sevoflurane Combined with Remifentanil in Morbidly Obese Patients

Background: This randomized prospective study with blinded postanesthesia care unit (PACU) observers compared the recovery profiles in morbidly obese patients who received sevoflurane or desflurane for maintenance of anesthesia in combination with a remifentanil target controlled infusion (TCI). Methods: 50 morbidly obese patients scheduled for laparoscopic gastric banding were included to receive BIS-guided sevoflurane or desflurane anesthesia with BIS-triggered inhalation boli in combination with remifentanil TCI. In the PACU, the following recovery scores were investigated: Modified Aldrete score, a modified Observers' Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (OAA/S), pain numerical rating scale (NRS), oxygen saturation (SpO₂) and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Results: OAA/S and NRS pain scores showed a similar evolution in both groups from the moment of PACU admission up to 120 minutes after admission. In both groups, patients showed no serious hypoxemia during PACU stay. Incidence of PONV was shorter lasting in the sevoflurane group compared to the desflurane group. Conclusions: No clinically relevant difference was found in recovery in the PACU between morbidly obese patients anesthetized with desflurane or sevoflurane. Both agents resulted in satisfactory recovery in morbidly obese patients.     

Comparison of effects of remifentanil, alfentanil and fentanyl on cardiovascular responses to tracheal intubation in morbidly obese patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The effects of remifentanil, alfentanil and fentanyl were compared on cardiovascular responses to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation in morbidly obese patients. METHODS: Eighty morbidly obese ASA I-II patients were included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into four groups to receive either 1 microgkg(-1) fentanyl (Group F), 10 microgkg(-1) alfentanil (A), 1 microgkg(-1) followed by an infusion of 0.5 pg kg min(-1) remifentanil (R) or saline (P). The patients corrected weight was used to calculate the drug doses. Body mass indices (range) were: 54.3 +/- 7.37 (49-78.4), 55.67 +/- 7.44 (48.5-78.4), 53.17 +/- 5.36 (48.1-63.2), and 56.3 +/- 6.09 (46.6-67.7) kg m(-2), in Groups F, R, A and P respectively. Systolic, diastolic and mean arterial pressures and heart rate were measured non-invasively at three time points, which were 2 min before induction, 2 min after induction and 2 min after endotracheal intubation. RESULTS: After induction of anaesthesia, arterial pressures decreased significantly in all groups, but the decrease was more pronounced in Groups A and R. After induction, heart rate decreased significantly in all groups except in Group P. After intubation, haemodynamic responses were similar in the remifentanil, fentanyl and alfentanil groups and were within normal limits. In Group P, arterial pressures and heart rates were significantly higher. CONCLUSIONS: Alfentanil, fentanyl and remifentanil in the doses described had similar effects in controlling the haemodynamic response to tracheal intubation in ASA I-II morbidly obese patients.     

瑞芬太尼复合芬太尼全凭静脉麻醉用于腹腔镜胆囊切除术的临床研究

目的对比研究瑞芬太尼复合芬太尼全凭静脉麻醉与单纯使用瑞芬太尼或芬太尼静脉复合麻醉用于腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC）的效果。方法60例择期LC患者，随机分为三组：单纯瑞芬太尼组（R）、瑞芬太尼＋芬太尼组（RF）和单纯芬太尼组（F）（n=20）。观察记录全麻诱导、维持及苏醒期平均动脉压（MAP）、心率（HR）、SpO2，停药至患者自主呼吸恢复时间、意识恢复时间、拔除气管导管时间，病人拔管后即刻、1、3、7、12h的疼痛程度评分（VRS）、意识状态评分（OAAS）及苏醒期并发症。结果与RF、F组及组内诱导前比，R组诱导插管时MAP较低，HR较快，术毕MAP较高，HR增快，术中维持过程无明显差异。RF、F两组间及组内在诱导与维持过程MAP及HR无明显差异，拔管及离开手术室时RF组MAP升高、HR增快。R、RF两组术后各观察指标时间差异无显著性，F组明显延长。三组术后并发症无统计学差异。R组术后VRS明显高于RF、F组（P〈0．01）；组内与拔管后即刻相比，R组术后VRS评分均明显升高，RF、F组无明显变化。F组在拔管后即刻，术后1、3h的OAAS均明显低于R、RF组（P〈0．01）。结论与单纯使用瑞芬太尼或芬太尼麻醉相比较，在麻醉诱导期复合使用瑞芬太尼和芬太尼，后期再以瑞芬太尼维持麻醉，其麻醉效应更加平稳，苏醒质量不受明显影响，术后不良反应更轻，并可减少患者术后对于镇痛的要求。     

瑞芬太尼、芬太尼对过度肥胖患者麻醉效果及麻醉复苏质量的影响

目的 探讨芬太尼和瑞芬太尼对于肥胖患者全身麻醉效果及复苏的影响,探索联合应用两种药物的可行性,并找到较为可行的联合方式.方法 按随机区组设计将实施全身麻醉的肥胖患者分为4组,每组20例,分别是芬太尼组(F组),瑞芬太尼组(R组),芬太尼复合瑞芬太尼l组(RF1组)和芬太尼复合瑞芬太尼2组(RF2组),比较4组患者的全身...     

TIVA mit Propofol/Remifentanil oder balancierte Anästhesie mit Sevofluran/Fentanyl bei laparoskopischen Operationen

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to investigate the differences between TIVA with propofol/remifentanil (P/R) and balanced anaesthesia with sevoflurane/fentanyl (S/F) in gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Emphasis was put on haemodynamic reaction, recovery profile, postoperative side effects and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Sixty patients were randomly assigned to receive either total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol/remifentanil or anaesthesia with sevoflurane/fentanyl. After premedication (midazolam) and induction of anesthesia (propofol, atracurium) in both groups, either 1 microgram/kg fentanyl (S/F) or 1 microgram/kg remifentanil (P/R) was injected. Anaesthesia was maintained with 0.5 microgram/kg/min remifentanil (reduced to 50% after 5 min) and 0.06 microgram/kg/min propofol (P/R) or 1.7 vol % sevoflurane (S/F). Both groups were mechanically ventilated with 30% oxygen in air. The administration of sevoflurane and the infusion of the anaesthetics were adjusted to maintain a surgical depth of anaesthesia. For postoperative analgesia 1 g paracetamol was administered rectally prior to surgery. After recovery 20 mg/kg metamizol was given intravenously. At the end of surgery the anaesthetics were discontinued and haemodynamics, early emergence from anaesthesia, pain level, frequency of analgesic demand, incidence of PONV, shivering and patient satisfaction were assessed. Parameters were recorded for 24 h postoperatively. RESULTS: Recovery time after propofol-remifentanil anaesthesia was significantly shorter than after administration of sevoflurane and fentanyl (spontaneous ventilation 4.1 vs. 6.3 min, extubation 4.3 vs. 9.3 min, eye opening 4.4 vs 8.2 min, stating name 5.3 vs. 13.2 min, stating date of birth 5.4 vs. 13.3 min). There were no significant differences between the groups in shivering, pain score, analgesic demand and PONV. The S/F group responded to tracheal intubation with significantly higher blood pressure than the P/R group. During maintenance of anaesthesia heart rate in patients with S/F was significantly higher (P/R:HR max +16/-10; S/F:HR max +24/-0.). Measured on a scale (S/F 62%). CONCLUSION: Compared with patients given balanced anaesthesia with sevoflurane and fentanyl, TIVA with propofol and remifentanil proved to be particularly suited for gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Its major advantages are haemodynamic stability, significantly shorter times of emergence, and the exceptional acceptance by the patients.     

Continuous Spinal Anesthesia/Analgesia for Perioperative Management of Morbidly Obese Patients Undergoing Laparotomy for Gastroplastic Surgery

Background: The authors determined prospectively the safety of continuous spinal anesthesia combined with general anesthesia and the efficacy of postoperative pain relief with continuous spinal analgesia for morbidly obese patients undergoing vertical banded gastroplasty. Methods: 27 patients (13 men, 14 women) with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 50.4 ± 7.8 and several co-morbidities were studied. All patients were anesthetized with the same anesthetic regimen, which included midazolam, fentanyl, propofol, muscle relaxants, N₂O, isoflurane and intrathecal bupivacaine. Postoperative pain relief was provided for 5 days and all patients received the same regimen, which included intrathecal bupivacaine, fentanyl and intravenous tenoxicam. The intrathecal analgesic regimen was administered continuously through a pump which had the facility of providing bolus doses when requested in predetermined lockout intervals. Intra-operative monitoring included hemodynamic and respiratory parameters. Additional postoperative monitoring included respiratory rate, degree of sedation, sensory level of anesthesia, motor response and intensity of pain. Results: Intraoperative anesthetic technique was safe and provided satisfactory results in the immediate postoperative period. Furthermore, the postoperative analgesia regimen provided effective analgesia in all patients.The mean doses of fentanyl and bupivacaine infused intrathecally for the first 24 postoperative hours were 14.1 ± 2.0 μg.h^-1 and 0.7 ± 0.1 mg.h^-1 respectively, while the requirements of anal gesia decreased progressively with time. The technique provided effective analgesia with low pain scores, which was reflected by ease in mobilizing and performing physical exercises with the physiotherapist. Only minor complications related to anesthesia and analgesia were encountered. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this technique of anesthesia and postoperative analgesia has not been described before in morbidly obese patients. This regimen merits further controlled trials to establish its place in the perioperative management of morbidly obese patients.     

Comparison of hemodynamics,recovery profile,and early postoperative pain control and costs of remifentanil versus alfentanil-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA)

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare hemodynamics, recovery profiles, early postoperative pain control and costs of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and remifentanil and propofol and alfentanil. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind study. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: 40 ASA physical status I and II adult patients scheduled for lumbar discectomy. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remifentanil-propofol or alfentanil-propofol. Anesthesia was induced with remifentanil 1 microg kg(-1) or alfentanil 20 microg kg(-1) with propofol 2 mg kg(-1), and maintained with infusions of propofol 150 to 100 microg kg(-1)min(-1) and either remifentanil 0.1 microg kg(-1) min(-1) or alfentanil 0.5 microg kg(-1) min(-1). MEASUREMENTS: Hemodynamic parameters (heart rate and mean arterial pressure), times to awakening, and tracheal extubation were recorded. In the postanesthesia care unit, pain level, frequency of analgesic demand, frequency of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), partial oxygen saturation (SpO2), and respiratory rates were noted. Drug dosages and costs of each technique were determined. MAIN RESULTS: The mean arterial pressure significantly decreased compared to baseline values 1 minute after induction (p < 0.05) in both groups, and it significantly decreased at 5, 15, and 30 minutes perioperatively in the remifentanil group compared to the alfentanil group (p < 0.05). Time of extubation, spontaneous eye opening, and response to verbal command were similar in both groups. Visual analog scale pain scores at 30 minutes and 60 minutes were significantly lower in the alfentanil group than remifentanil group (p < 0.05). At 15, 30, and 60 minutes after terminating the operation oxygen saturation and respiratory rate were significantly higher (p < 0.05) and analgesics were required sooner in the remifentanil group than the alfentanil group (p < 0.05). The frequency of PONV was similar in both groups. The remifentanil-propofol anesthesia was found to be slightly more expensive as compared to the alfentanil based TIVA (33.41 +/- 4.53 vs. 29.97 +/- 4.1 USD) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both remifentanil and alfentanil provided a reasonably rapid and reliable recovery. The remifentanil-based TIVA was associated with high intraoperative cost and early postoperative pain, but it allowed a more rapid respiratory recovery.     

Small doses of remifentanil and alfetanil in continuous total intravenous anesthesia in major abdominal surgery. A double blind comparison

AIM: The purpose of this study was to test the safety and efficacy of small doses of remifentanil and alfentanil in a continuous total intravenous anesthesia technique for patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. METHODS: Sixty patients were enrolled in the study, and received in a double blind fashion either remifentanil (0.1 microg/kg/min) or alfentanil (alfentanil 0.75 microg/kg/min) in association with propofol (12 mg/kg/h at induction; 6-9 mg/kg/h for maintenance) and cisatracurium. Hemodynamic data, hypnosis monitoring data (Bispectral Index Score), ventilatory parameters and settings, drug utilisation were monitored during stress moments and during all the intraoperative period. Patients were evaluated also in the first 6 postoperative hours. RESULTS: Mean amount of propofol for induction (BIS<60) was lower in the remifentanil group than in the alfentanil group. Significantly fewer patients receiving remifentanil responded to intubation in comparison with patients receiving alfentanil in terms of non invasive blood pressure (>30 mmHg) and heart rate variations. Significantly more patients receiving alfentanil had 1 or more responses to surgery. Incidence of hypotension was significantly higher in patients receiving remifentanil. There were no differences between the 2 groups in the times for spontaneous respiration, adequate respiration, adequate responsivness (OAA/s=5) and discharge from the recovery room. Time to extubation resulted slightly shorter (p<0.05) in patients who received remifentanil. CONCLUSIONS: The use of remifentanil and alfentanil in association with propofol, in a continuous infusion total intravenous anesthesia technique, demonstrated to be safe and reliable strategies.     

瑞芬太尼与芬太尼对老年患者术后认知功能的影响

目的 比较瑞芬太尼和芬太尼全凭静脉麻醉对老年患者术后认知功能的影响.方法 选择ASA Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,年龄65～70岁之间择期行腹腔镜下胆囊切除术患者80例,随机分为两组:瑞芬太尼加丙泊酚靶控输注组(R组,40例);芬太尼加丙泊酚靶控输注组(F组,40例).所有患者于手术前1d及术后1、3、5d于每天16～18时进行成人韦氏量表评分(WAIS).结果 术后睁眼时间、拔管时间、复苏室停留时间R组明显短于F组(P＜0.05).拔管后Steward苏醒评分和Prince-Henry疼痛评分R组明显高于F组(P＜0.05).术后1d两组WAIS评分明显低于术前1d(P＜0.05),术后5d两组WAIS评分明显高于术后1 d(P＜0.05).两组间各时点WAIS评分比较差异无统计学意义.术中阿托品、麻黄碱、乌拉地尔用量组间差异无统计学意义.结论 瑞芬太尼和芬太尼全凭静脉麻醉用于老年患者腹腔镜手术均可引起术后一过性认知功能减低,短期内认知功能会逐渐恢复到术前水平.     

Total intravenous anesthesia versus single breath technique and anesthesia maintenance with sevoflurane for bariatric operations

Background: The choice of anesthetic technique for general anesthesia in morbidly obese patients remains controversial. We aimed to compare blood gases, recovery and hemodynamic parameters using TIVA and sevoflurane anesthesia in bariatric surgery. Methods: The study was performed with permission of the ethics committee.We studied 40 morbidly obese patients allocated to 2 groups. The total I.V. anesthesia (TIVA) group was named Group T, and the sevoflurane group was named Group S. In Group T, anesthesia induction was achieved with propofol. In Group S, anesthesia induction was achieved by sevoflurane with single breath technique, with maintenance provided with 1-2% volume sevoflurane. Student t, Chi square and ANOVA tests were used for data analysis; p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in demographic data, blood gas values and recovery characteristic. Hemodynamic values were significantly lower in Group T than Group S, during and after the operative period. Conclusion: While sevoflurane induction and maintenance is a suitable anesthetic modality for obese patients, TIVA can be applied easily in those patients possessing no extra risk factors other than morbid obesity.     

Remifentanil vs fentanyl with a target controlled propofol infusion in patients undergoing craniotomy for supratentorial lesions

AIM: Remifentanil hydrochloride is an ultra-short acting m-opioid receptor agonist. This study compared the use of remifentanil with that of fentanyl during elective supratentorial craniotomy in a target controlled infusion (TCI)-propofol anesthesia regimen and evaluated the quality of recovery from anesthesia. METHODS: After written informed consent for this prospective study, 40 adult patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: in group F analgesia was provided with fentanyl 2-3 mg kg(-1) h(-1) and in group R with remifentanil 0.25 mg kg(-1) h(-1). Anesthesia was induced with thiopental and pancuronium bromide, and maintained with propofol-TCI, pancuronium, air and oxygen and fentanyl (group F) or remifentanil (group R), respectively. After tracheal intubation, infusion rate of remifentanil was reduced and then adjusted to maintain stable hemodynamics. Hemodynamics and recovery time were monitored for 60 min after surgery. Analgesic requirements, propofol intraoperative consumption, nausea and vomiting in postoperative period were monitored. Recovery was evaluated according to a modified Aldrete score. RESULTS: Baseline hemodynamics were similar in both groups. Mean arterial pressure differed between the 2 groups (P<0.05) with the greatest decrease in group R during dura opening (P<0.001). Postoperative mean arterial pressure was higher in group R. Patients in group R exhibited a faster recovery. The incidence of nausea and vomiting was similar in the 2 groups. Noteworthy, there was a reduction in the amount of propofol used in group R. CONCLUSIONS: Remifentanil appears to be a reasonable alternative to fentanyl during elective surgery of supratentorial lesions.     

Comparison of the effectiveness of metoclopramide, ondansetron, and granisetron on the prevention of nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND AND GOALS: A relatively high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) occurs in patients undergoing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Prophylaxis of PONV is usually achieved with a single-dose antiemetic drug administered during the surgical procedure. The aim of the current study was to compare the antiemetic activity of different 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists with that of metoclopramide. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a randomised, double-blind study, 75 patients received the following: Group M, 10 mg metoclopramide; Group K, 40 mcg . kg(-1) granisetron; and Group Z, 15 mcg . kg(-1) ondansetron intravenously (IV) diluted in 20 cc 0.9% NaCl (n = 25 of each) i.v. immediately before the induction of anesthesia. The standard general anesthetic technique, which consisted of sevoflurane in air-oxygen and a fentanyl perfusion, was used. Nausea, vomiting, and safety assessments were performed continuously during the first 24 hours after anesthesia. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences for demographic data, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA), operation duration, or anesthesia time among the three groups (P > 0.05). Evaluated nausea and vomiting scores in the first 3-hour period revealed that each of the drugs had a similar antiemetic effect (P > 0.05). Nausea and vomiting scores, evaluated between the 4-24 hours, also revealed that the group M scores were obviously higher than groups K and Z (P < 0.001). A comparison of incidences of dose administrations were statistically not significant among the groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Granisetron, when given prophylactically, resulted in a significantly lower incidence of PONV than metoclopramide and ondansetron, whereas metoclopramide was ineffective. Garnisetron may be an effective treatment in the proflaxy of PONV.     

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.     

Less postoperative nausea and vomiting after propofol + remifentanil versus propofol + fentanyl anaesthesia during plastic surgery

BACKGROUND: The effect of different opioids on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) has not been conclusively determined yet, thus the aim of this study was to compare the incidence of PONV in propofol-anaesthetized patients receiving either fentanyl or remifentanil as opioid supplement. METHODS: Sixty ASA physical status I and II patients scheduled for plastic surgery gave their written informed consent for this prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol, rocuronium and fentanyl (n = 30; 2 microg kg(-1)) or remifentanil (n = 30; 1 microg kg(-1)). After tracheal intubation, anaesthesia was maintained with propofol, oxygen in air and an infusion of the opioid studied, which was modified according to clinical criteria. Baseline postoperative analgesia was achieved with intravenous propacetamol + metamizol. Intravenous morphine was given if visual analogic scale (VAS) for pain was > or = 4 (scale 0-10) and metoclopramide was administered if a patient presented > or = 2 PONV episodes (nausea or vomiting) in less than 30 min. Postoperatively (2, 12 and 24 h), we registered VAS, rescue morphine consumption, number of patients with episodes of PONV and number of patients requiring metoclopramide. P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups in the demographic parameters, ASA physical status, propofol dose, VAS, and rescue morphine requirements. Fourteen patients in the fentanyl group and four in the remifentanil group presented PONV episodes 2-12 h postoperative hours' interval; (P < 0.05). Ten patients in the fentanyl group and four in the remifentanil group presented vomiting episodes in the same period (P < 0.05); and eight patients in the fentanyl group and one in the remifentanil group required metoclopramide; (P < 0.05). The number of postoperative PONV episodes were low, both in the 0-2-h period (n = 2 vs. n = 1, fentanyl and remifentanil, respectively) and in the 12-24-h period (n = 3 vs. n = 1). CONCLUSION: Propofol + fentanyl anaesthesia resulted in a higher incidence of PONV and requirements of antiemetic drugs in the period between 2 and 12 postoperative hours compared with propofol + remifentanil, in patients undergoing plastic surgery.     

Comparison of the incidence and severity of cough after alfentanil and remifentanil injection

Background: Intravenous administration of fentanyl derivatives can induce cough paradoxically. This study examined the incidence and severity of cough after a bolus of alfentanil and remifentanil. Methods: Four hundred and sixty‐five patients, aged 18–70 years, were allocated randomly to three groups to receive alfentanil 10 μg/kg, remifentanil 1 μg/kg or an equal volume of 0.9% saline intravenously over 10 s. Any episode of cough was classified as coughing and graded as mild (1–2), moderate (3–4) or severe (5 or more). Results: The overall incidence of cough was higher in the opioid groups than in the saline group. The remifentanil group [39/150 patients; 26.0% (95% CI, 19.6–33.6%)] showed a higher incidence than the alfentanil group [11/152 patients; 7.2% (95% CI, 0.4–12.6%)] (P<0.001). There was no significant difference in the severity of cough between the alfentanil group and the remifentanil group. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that equipotent boluses of alfentanil and remifentanil induced coughing, even though the incidence of cough after alfentanil administration was lower than that after remifentanil administration.     

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 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.     

Target-controlled infusion of remifentanil or fentanyl during extra-corporeal shock-wave lithotripsy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Target-controlled infusions (TCIs) of remifentanil and fentanyl in conscious sedation regimes for extra-corporeal shock-wave lithotripsy have not been reported. We estimated the effect site concentrations of remifentanil and fentanyl needed to obtain adequate analgesia in 50% of patients (EC50) and compared both drugs in terms of intra- and post-procedure complications. METHODS: Forty-four adult patients were randomly distributed into two groups: Group R received remifentanil and Group F received fentanyl TCI with initial effect site concentrations of 1.5 and 2 ng mL(-1), respectively. Pain was assessed using a 10-point verbal analogue scale and <3 was considered adequate analgesia. Increments or decrements of 0.5 ng mL(-1) were then introduced for subsequent patients according to Dixon's up and down method. During the rest of the procedure, TCI was adjusted to maintain verbal analogue scale <3. RESULTS: Remifentanil and fentanyl EC50 were 2.8 ng mL(-1) (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.8-3.7 ng mL(-1)) and 2.9 ng mL(-1) (95% CI: 1.7-4.1 ng mL(-1)), respectively (n.s.). At EC50, the probability of having a respiratory rate <10 was 4% (95% CI: 0-57%) for remifentanil and 56% (95% CI: 13-92%) for fentanyl. Hypoxaemia, vomiting and sedation were more frequent in Group F during and after the procedure (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A similar EC50 but more respiratory depression, sedation and PONV were found with fentanyl TCI than with remifentanil TCI.     

阿片类药物对老年患者经尿道激光碎石术苏醒质量的影响

目的 观察阿片类药物对老年患者经尿道激光碎石术苏醒质量的影响. 方法 择期经尿道激光碎石手术患者134例,年龄65～79岁,ASA分级Ⅰ、Ⅱ级,采用随机数字表法分为3组:瑞芬太尼组(R组)46例、瑞芬太尼+芬太尼组(RF组)44例、芬太尼组(F组)44例.R组,采用丙泊酚和瑞芬太尼靶控输注(target-controlled infusion,TCI)进行麻醉诱导和麻醉维持;RF组,丙泊酚TCI麻醉诱导,静脉注射芬太尼2μg/kg,丙泊酚+瑞芬太尼TCI麻醉维持;F组,丙泊酚TCI麻醉诱导,芬太尼4 μg/kg,丙泊酚TCI麻醉维持.手术结束后送入PACU,记录患者被转入PACU时(T1)、拔除喉罩前2 min (T2)、拔除喉罩即刻(T3)和拔除喉罩后5 min(Td)4个时间点的MAP、HR,记录拔除喉罩后VAS评分和苏醒期芬太尼用量,记录患者睁眼时间、拔除喉罩时间和PACU驻留时间. 结果 麻醉苏醒期间R组在T1～T3时点MAP[(110±18)、(122±13)、(121±14) mmHg(1 mmHg=0A33 kPa)]和HR[(79±15)、(97±17)、(99±18)次/min]高于RF组(P＜0.05);R组VAS[(1.8±1.4)分]高于RF组[(0.9±0.9)分]和F组[(0.9±0.9)分](P＜0.05);R组需芬太尼镇痛患者比例高于其他两组(P＜0.05);F组的睁眼时间、拔喉罩时间以及PACU驻留时间比RF组和R组长(P＜0.05). 结论 老年患者经尿道激光碎石术应用丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼+芬太尼全凭静脉麻醉比丙泊酚单纯复合瑞芬太尼或芬太尼苏醒期间血流动力学平稳、苏醒迅速、术后镇痛效果好.     

The Effects of Pneumoperitoneum on Respiratory Mechanics During General Anesthesia for Bariatric Surgery

Background:The effects of pneumoperitoneum (PPM) on respiratory mechanics during bariatric surgery were investigated. Patients and Methods: 10 patients with BMI 50.5±8 kg/m² (range 40.9- 66.8) who underwent laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding with the Swedish band under general anesthesia were studied. Besides routine monitoring of vital signs and lung volumes, respiratory mechanics (compliance and resistance) were measured during positive pressure ventilation using an anesthesia delivery unit (Datex Ohmeda type A_Elec). Data were recorded at the following stages: 1) before PPM, 2) during PPM, and 3) after gas deflation. One-way analysis of variance was used for analysis of data. P <0.05 was considered significant. Results: The airway, peak inspiratory and plateau pressures increased significantly during PPM. Dynamic lung compliances were 44.6±7.8 SD, 31.8±5.5 and 44.5±8.3 cm/H₂O before, during and after PPM respectively with significant differences (P <0.05). Conclusions: Although significant decrease in lung mechanics was found in the present study,these variations were well tolerated in morbidly obese patients with PPM pressure of 15 mmHg.