Jong Bum Choi1, Hyun Jeong Kwak2, Kyung Cheon Lee2, Se Ryeon Lee3, Sook Young Lee3, Jong Yeop Kim4. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Anesthesia and Pain Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University, Incheon, Korea. 3. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Ajou University School of Medicine, San 5, Wonchon-dong, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon, 443-721, Korea. 4. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Ajou University School of Medicine, San 5, Wonchon-dong, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon, 443-721, Korea. kjyeop@ajou.ac.kr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Each supraglottic airway requires different anesthetic depth because it has a specific structure and different compressive force in the oropharyngeal cavity. We designed the study to compare the effect-site concentration (Ce) of remifentanil in 50 % of patients (EC50) for successful insertion of thei-gel second-generation supraglottic airway device with that for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion during target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol. METHODS:Forty-one female patients were randomized to the i-gel group (n = 20) or the LMA group (n = 21). Anesthesia was induced with propofol Ce of 5 μg/ml and the predetermined remifentanil Ce, and the i-gel or LMA was inserted 5 min later. The remifentanil Ce was estimated by modified Dixon's up-and-down method (initial concentration: 3.0 ng/ml, step size: 0.5 ng/ml). The patient's response to device insertion was classified as either "success (no movement)" or "failure (movement)". RESULTS: Using the Dixon's up-and-down method, EC50 of remifentanil Ce for the i-gel (1.58 ± 0.41 ng/ml) was significantly lower than that for LMA (2.25 ± 0.55 ng/ml) (p = 0.038). Using isotonic regression, EC50 (83 % CI) of remifentanil in the i-gel group [1.50 (1.37-1.80) ng/ml] was statistically lower than that in the LMA group [2.00 (1.82-2.34) ng/ml]. EC95 (95 % CI) of remifentanil in the i-gel group [2.38 (1.48-2.50) ng/ml] was statistically lower than that in the LMA group [3.35 (2.58-3.48) ng/ml]. CONCLUSIONS: We found that EC50 of remifentanil Ce for i-gel insertion (1.58 ng/ml) was significantly lower than that for LMA insertion (2.25 ng/ml) in female patients during propofol TCI without neuromuscular blockade.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Each supraglottic airway requires different anesthetic depth because it has a specific structure and different compressive force in the oropharyngeal cavity. We designed the study to compare the effect-site concentration (Ce) of remifentanil in 50 % of patients (EC50) for successful insertion of the i-gel second-generation supraglottic airway device with that for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion during target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol. METHODS: Forty-one female patients were randomized to the i-gel group (n = 20) or the LMA group (n = 21). Anesthesia was induced with propofol Ce of 5 μg/ml and the predetermined remifentanil Ce, and the i-gel or LMA was inserted 5 min later. The remifentanil Ce was estimated by modified Dixon's up-and-down method (initial concentration: 3.0 ng/ml, step size: 0.5 ng/ml). The patient's response to device insertion was classified as either "success (no movement)" or "failure (movement)". RESULTS: Using the Dixon's up-and-down method, EC50 of remifentanil Ce for the i-gel (1.58 ± 0.41 ng/ml) was significantly lower than that for LMA (2.25 ± 0.55 ng/ml) (p = 0.038). Using isotonic regression, EC50 (83 % CI) of remifentanil in the i-gel group [1.50 (1.37-1.80) ng/ml] was statistically lower than that in the LMA group [2.00 (1.82-2.34) ng/ml]. EC95 (95 % CI) of remifentanil in the i-gel group [2.38 (1.48-2.50) ng/ml] was statistically lower than that in the LMA group [3.35 (2.58-3.48) ng/ml]. CONCLUSIONS: We found that EC50 of remifentanil Ce for i-gel insertion (1.58 ng/ml) was significantly lower than that for LMA insertion (2.25 ng/ml) in female patients during propofolTCI without neuromuscular blockade.
Authors: C F Minto; T W Schnider; T D Egan; E Youngs; H J Lemmens; P L Gambus; V Billard; J F Hoke; K H Moore; D J Hermann; K T Muir; J W Mandema; S L Shafer Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 1997-01 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: M M Struys; T De Smet; B Depoorter; L F Versichelen; E P Mortier; F J Dumortier; S L Shafer; G Rolly Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Han Bum Joe; Jong Yeop Kim; Hyun Jeong Kwak; Sang Eon Oh; Sook Young Lee; Sung Yong Park Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 1.889