BACKGROUND: Two opioid regimens, computer-simulated to provide optimal general anesthesia in combination with propofol, were compared using clinical criteria. METHODS:Fifty patients undergoing thyroid surgery were blindly, prospectively and randomly allocated to receive either (a) i.v. remifentanil (1.5 micro g kg-1, followed by 0.2 micro g kg-1 min-1) or (b) i.v. sufentanil (0.2 micro g kg-1 followed by 0.2 micro g kg-1 h-1). Remifentanil infusion was stopped at the last skin suture. Sufentanil infusion was stopped 30 min before the end of surgery. Intravenous propofol was titrated to keep BIS at 50+/-5. Remifentanil and sufentanil groups were compared with regards to (a) propofol delivery, (b) hemodynamic and recovery variables, and (c) effect-site propofol levels during a steady-state period for effect-site remifentanil and sufentanil levels. P<0.05 was significant. RESULTS: Groups were similar in demographic data; types and durations of surgery; total propofol consumption; and response, extubation and emergence times. During the steady-state period for the opioid delivery, the remifentanil and sufentanil effect-site levels were 5.3 ng ml-1 and 0.18 ng ml-1, respectively (potency ratio=30). In both opioid groups, in accordance with previous computer-simulations, the effect-site propofol concentrations remained (a) within a narrow range unaffected by surgical stimuli, (b) significantly smaller in the remifentanil group than in the sufentanil group, but (c) smaller than expected from previous computer-simulations. More patients required ephedrine following induction of anesthesia in the remifentanil compared with the sufentanil group. CONCLUSIONS: The present clinical trial conducted in thyroid surgery is consistent with previous computer-simulated opioid-propofol combinations with respect to intraoperative and recovery variables. Effect-site propofol ranges were, however, lower than expected.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Two opioid regimens, computer-simulated to provide optimal general anesthesia in combination with propofol, were compared using clinical criteria. METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing thyroid surgery were blindly, prospectively and randomly allocated to receive either (a) i.v. remifentanil (1.5 micro g kg-1, followed by 0.2 micro g kg-1 min-1) or (b) i.v. sufentanil (0.2 micro g kg-1 followed by 0.2 micro g kg-1 h-1). Remifentanil infusion was stopped at the last skin suture. Sufentanil infusion was stopped 30 min before the end of surgery. Intravenous propofol was titrated to keep BIS at 50+/-5. Remifentanil and sufentanil groups were compared with regards to (a) propofol delivery, (b) hemodynamic and recovery variables, and (c) effect-site propofol levels during a steady-state period for effect-site remifentanil and sufentanil levels. P<0.05 was significant. RESULTS: Groups were similar in demographic data; types and durations of surgery; total propofol consumption; and response, extubation and emergence times. During the steady-state period for the opioid delivery, the remifentanil and sufentanil effect-site levels were 5.3 ng ml-1 and 0.18 ng ml-1, respectively (potency ratio=30). In both opioid groups, in accordance with previous computer-simulations, the effect-site propofol concentrations remained (a) within a narrow range unaffected by surgical stimuli, (b) significantly smaller in the remifentanil group than in the sufentanil group, but (c) smaller than expected from previous computer-simulations. More patients required ephedrine following induction of anesthesia in the remifentanil compared with the sufentanil group. CONCLUSIONS: The present clinical trial conducted in thyroid surgery is consistent with previous computer-simulated opioid-propofol combinations with respect to intraoperative and recovery variables. Effect-site propofol ranges were, however, lower than expected.