Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:15:45.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of adding nitrous oxide on MAC of sevoflurane combined with two target-controlled concentrations of remifentanil in women

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2005

A. Albertin ,
A. Casati ,
P. C. Bergonzi ,
E. Moizo ,
F. Lombardo  and
G. Torri
A. Albertin
Affiliation:
Vita-Salute University of Milano, Department of Anesthesiology, IRCCS H, San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
A. Casati
Affiliation:
Vita-Salute University of Milano, Department of Anesthesiology, IRCCS H, San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
P. C. Bergonzi
Affiliation:
Vita-Salute University of Milano, Department of Anesthesiology, IRCCS H, San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
E. Moizo
Affiliation:
Vita-Salute University of Milano, Department of Anesthesiology, IRCCS H, San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
F. Lombardo
Affiliation:
Vita-Salute University of Milano, Department of Anesthesiology, IRCCS H, San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
G. Torri
Affiliation:
Vita-Salute University of Milano, Department of Anesthesiology, IRCCS H, San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
Get access

Extract

Summary

Background and objective: The aim of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to determine the effects of adding nitrous oxide on sevoflurane requirement for blunting sympathetic responses after surgical incision combined with two different target-controlled concentrations of remifentanil (1 and 3 ng mL−1) in female.

Methods: 102 female patients, aged 20–50 yr, ASA I, undergoing general anaesthesia for elective abdominal surgery were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive sevoflurane anaesthesia alone (Group A, n = 53), or with the addition of 60% nitrous oxide (Group N, n = 49). Patients of both groups were further assigned to receive a target-controlled remifentanil infusion with an effect-site concentration of either 1 ng mL−1 (Group N1, n = 27; Group A1, n = 30), or 3 ng mL−1 (Group N3, n = 22; Group A3, n = 23). Sympathetic responses to surgical incision were determined after a 20-min period of stable end-tidal sevoflurane and target-controlled remifentanil concentrations. Predetermined end-tidal sevoflurane concentrations and minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) for each group were determined using an up-and-down sequential allocation technique.

Results: The MAC of sevoflurane was 3.96% (95% confidence interval, CI95: 3.69–4.23%) in Group A1 and 1.2% (CI95: 0.9–1.3%) in Group N1 (P < 0.01), while in Groups A3 and N3 the MAC of sevoflurane was 0.36% (CI95: 0.24–0.47%) and 0.18% (CI95: 0.1–0.3%), respectively (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: Adding 60% nitrous oxide reduces the MAC of sevoflurane by 70% when using a remifentanil concentration of 1 ng mL−1 and 50% when using a remifentanil concentration of 3 ng mL−1.

Keywords

ANAESTHETICS, INHALATION, nitrous oxide, sevoflurane, minimum alveolar concentrationANALGESICS, OPIOID, remifentanilSTRESS, sympathetic response
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 22 , Issue 6 , June 2005 , pp. 431 - 437
Copyright
© 2005 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Zbinden AM, Petersen-Felix S, Thomson DA. Anesthetic depth defined using multiple noxious stimuli during isoflurane/oxygen anaesthesia. II. Hemodynamic responses. Anesthesiology 1994; 80: 261–267.Google Scholar
Katoh T, Ikeda K. The effects of fentanyl on sevoflurane requirements for loss of consciousness and skin incision. Anesthesiology 1998; 88: 18–24.Google Scholar
Katoh T, Kobayashi S, Suzuki A, Iwamoto T, Hiromichi B, Ikeda K. The effects of fentanyl on sevoflurane requirements for somatic and sympathetic responses to surgical incision. Anesthesiology 1999; 90: 398–405.Google Scholar
Katoh T, Nakajima Y, Moriwaki G, et al. Sevoflurane requirements for tracheal intubation with and without fentanyl. Br J Anaesth 1999; 82: 561–565.Google Scholar
Glass PSA, Hardman D, Kamiyama Y, et al. Preliminary pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of an ultra-short-acting opioid: remifentanil (GI87084B). Anesth Analg 1993; 77: 1031–1040.Google Scholar
Albertin A, Casati A, Deni F, et al. Clinical comparison of either small doses of fentanyl or remifentanil for blunting cardiovascular changes induced by tracheal intubation. Minerva Anestesiol 2000; 66: 691–696.Google Scholar
Casati A, Albertin A, Fanelli G, et al. A comparison of remifentanil and sufentanil as adjuvants during sevoflurane anesthesia with epidural analgesia for upper abdominal surgery: effects on postoperative recovery and respiratory function. Anesth Analg 2000; 91: 1269–1273.Google Scholar
Matute E, Alsina E, Roses R, Blanc G, Perez-Hernandez C, Gilsanz F. An inhalation bolus of sevoflurane versus an intravenous bolus of remifentanil for controlling hemodynamic responses to surgical stress during major surgery: a prospective randomized trial. Anesth Analg 2002; 94: 1217–1222.Google Scholar
De Castro V, Godet G, Mencia G, Raux M, Coriat P. Target-controlled infusion for remifentanil in vascular patients improves hemodynamics and decreases remifentanil requirement. Anesth Analg 2003; 96: 33–38.Google Scholar
Ura T, Higuchi H, Taoda M, Sato T. Minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane that blocks the adrenergic response to surgical incision in women: MACbar. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1999; 16: 176–181.Google Scholar
Nickalls RW, Mapleson WW. Age-related iso-MAC charts for isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane in man. Br J Anaesth 2003; 91: 170–174.Google Scholar
Glass PS, Glen JB, Kenny GN, Schuttler J, Shafer SL. Nomenclature for computer assisted infusion devices. Anesthesiology 1997; 86: 1430–1431.Google Scholar
Minto CF, Schnider TW, Egan TD, et al. Influence of age and gender on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil. I. Model development. Anesthesiology 1997; 86: 10–23.Google Scholar
Minto CF, Schnider TW, Shafer SL. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil. II. Model application. Anesthesiology 1997; 86: 24–33.Google Scholar
Dixon JW. Staircase bioassay: the up-and-down method. Neurosci Biobehavioral Rev 1991; 15: 47–50.Google Scholar
Choi SC. Interval estimation of the LD50 based on an up-and-down experiment. Biometrics 1990; 46: 485–492.Google Scholar
Jung H, Choi SC. Sequential method of estimating the LD50 using a modified up-and-down rule. J Biopharm Stat 1994; 4: 19–30.Google Scholar
Roizen MF, Horrigan RW, Frazer BM. Anesthetic doses blocking adrenergic (stress) and cardiovascular responses to incision – MAC BAR. Anesthesiology 1981; 54: 390–398.Google Scholar
Daniel M, Weiskopf RB, Noorani M, Eger EI. Fentanyl augments the blockade of the sympathetic response incision (MAC-BAR) produced by desflurane and isoflurane: desflurane and isoflurane MAC-BAR without and with fentanyl. Anesthesiology 1998; 88: 43–49.Google Scholar
Eger II EI. Age, minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration, and minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration-awake. Anesth Analg 2001; 93: 947–953.Google Scholar
Schneider G, Sebel PS. Monitoring depth of anaesthesia. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1997; 15 (Suppl): 21–28.Google Scholar