STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of remifentanil and propofol as adjuncts to regional anesthesia in patients undergoing orthopedic or urogenital surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study. SETTING:Multicenter university hospitals. PATIENTS: 107 ASA physical status I, II, and III adult patients who underwent orthopedic or urogenital surgery with axillary, ankle, or spinal block. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either an infusion of remifentanil 0.2 microg/kg/min or propofol 100 microg/kg/min 5 minutes before nerve block placement. The infusions were decreased by 50% on block completion, increased by 50% for patient discomfort, and decreased by 50% for hypoventilation (< 8 breaths/min) or hemodynamic instability. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Pain, discomfort, anxiety, and sedation were assessed by both patient and investigator. Vital signs and adverse events were recorded. Fewer patients in the remifentanil group experienced pain during block placement (6%), and were oversedated (7%) than patients in the propofol group (23% and 26%, respectively; p < 0.05). Hypoventilation during and after block placement (21% and 25%, respectively) and nausea and vomiting during and after block placement (60% and 21%, respectively) were more common in the remifentanil group than in the propofol group (0% and 3%; 17% and 6%, respectively; p < 0.05). The incidence of hypoventilation in remifentanil-treated patients was higher in patients over 65 years of age (p < 0.05), but was transient, resolving within minutes of discontinuing the infusion. CONCLUSIONS: At the doses studied, remifentanil was more effective than propofol in minimizing pain without producing excessive sedation. Remifentanil was associated with more transient respiratory depression and short-term nausea. Our findings indicate that the initial remifentanil rate should be 0.1 microg/kg/min (50% lower than the study's initial rate) and should be further decreased an additional 50% in the elderly to minimize adverse effects.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of remifentanil and propofol as adjuncts to regional anesthesia in patients undergoing orthopedic or urogenital surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study. SETTING: Multicenter university hospitals. PATIENTS: 107 ASA physical status I, II, and III adult patients who underwent orthopedic or urogenital surgery with axillary, ankle, or spinal block. INTERVENTIONS:Patients were randomized to receive either an infusion of remifentanil 0.2 microg/kg/min or propofol 100 microg/kg/min 5 minutes before nerve block placement. The infusions were decreased by 50% on block completion, increased by 50% for patient discomfort, and decreased by 50% for hypoventilation (< 8 breaths/min) or hemodynamic instability. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Pain, discomfort, anxiety, and sedation were assessed by both patient and investigator. Vital signs and adverse events were recorded. Fewer patients in the remifentanil group experienced pain during block placement (6%), and were oversedated (7%) than patients in the propofol group (23% and 26%, respectively; p < 0.05). Hypoventilation during and after block placement (21% and 25%, respectively) and nausea and vomiting during and after block placement (60% and 21%, respectively) were more common in the remifentanil group than in the propofol group (0% and 3%; 17% and 6%, respectively; p < 0.05). The incidence of hypoventilation in remifentanil-treated patients was higher in patients over 65 years of age (p < 0.05), but was transient, resolving within minutes of discontinuing the infusion. CONCLUSIONS: At the doses studied, remifentanil was more effective than propofol in minimizing pain without producing excessive sedation. Remifentanil was associated with more transient respiratory depression and short-term nausea. Our findings indicate that the initial remifentanil rate should be 0.1 microg/kg/min (50% lower than the study's initial rate) and should be further decreased an additional 50% in the elderly to minimize adverse effects.
Authors: Marc D Schmittner; Andrea Janke; Christel Weiss; Grietje C Beck; Dieter G Bussen Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2009-03-13 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: V R Hemanth Kumar; Umesh Kumar Athiraman; Sameer M Jahagirdar; R Sripriya; S Parthasarathy; M Ravishankar Journal: Saudi J Anaesth Date: 2015-01