Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:59:31.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Remifentanil–propofol versus sufentanil–propofol anaesthesia for supratentorial craniotomy: a randomized trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2005

K. Gerlach
Affiliation:
University Hospital Lübeck, Department of Anaesthesiology, Lübeck, Germany
T. Uhlig
Affiliation:
University Hospital Lübeck, Department of Anaesthesiology, Lübeck, Germany
M. Hüppe
Affiliation:
University Hospital Lübeck, Department of Anaesthesiology, Lübeck, Germany
G. Nowak
Affiliation:
University Hospital Lübeck, Department of Neurosurgery, Lübeck, Germany
A. Schmitz
Affiliation:
University Hospital Lübeck, Department of Anaesthesiology, Lübeck, Germany
L. Saager
Affiliation:
University Hospital Lübeck, Department of Anaesthesiology, Lübeck, Germany
A. Grasteit
Affiliation:
University Hospital Lübeck, Department of Anaesthesiology, Lübeck, Germany
P. Schmucker
Affiliation:
University Hospital Lübeck, Department of Anaesthesiology, Lübeck, Germany
Get access

Extract

Summary

Background and objective: Remifentanil has unique pharmacokinetics that might allow faster recovery after neurosurgery. We investigated the effects of a propofol/sufentanil versus a remifentanil/propofol regimen on the primary end-point tracheal extubation time.

Methods: In the Neurosurgery Department of a University Hospital, 36 patients awaiting craniotomy for supratentorial tumour resection were randomly assigned to one of two study groups. In the sufentanil/propofol group, anaesthesia was induced with 0.5 μg kg−1 sufentanil and 1–2 mg kg−1 propofol. Propofol infusion and boluses of sufentanil were administered for maintenance. In the remifentanil/propofol group, anaesthesia was started with an infusion of remifentanil (0.2–0.35 μg kg−1 min−1) and a bolus of propofol (1.5–2 mg kg−1). Patients received a propofol infusion and a remifentanil infusion for maintenance of anaesthesia. Recovery times were taken from cessation of the propofol infusion. In addition, data about self-reported nausea and vomiting, pain and analgesic requirements were collected.

Results: Patients in the remifentanil/propofol group were extubated earlier (mean times 6.4 (±SD 4.7) versus 14.3 (±9.2) min; P = 0.003). The two groups were similar with respect to postoperative nausea and vomiting, and patient-reported pain scores. Fifty per cent of the remifentanil/propofol patients and 88% of the sufentanil/propofol patients required no analgesics within 1 h after operation (P= 0.03).

Conclusions: The remifentanil/propofol regimen provided quicker recovery. The two regimens were similar in terms of postoperative nausea and vomiting and patient-reported pain scores, but patients in the remifentanil/propofol group required more analgesics within 1 h postoperatively.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© 2003 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

Baker KZ, Ostapkovich N, Sisti MB, et al. Intact cerebral blood flow reactivity during remifentanil/nitrous oxide anesthesia. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 1997; 9: 134140.Google Scholar
Paris A, Scholz J, von Knobelsdorff G, Tonner PH, Schulte am Esch J. The effect of remifentanil on cerebral blood flow velocity. Anesth Analg 1998; 87: 569573.Google Scholar
Warner DS, Hindman BJ, Todd MM, et al. Intracranial pressure and hemodynamic effects of remifentanil versus alfentanil in patients undergoing supratentorial craniotomy. Anesth Analg 1996; 83: 348353.Google Scholar
Guy J, Hindman BJ, Baker KZ, et al. Comparison of remifentanil and fentanyl in patients undergoing craniotomy for supratentorial space-occupying lesions. Anesthesiology 1997; 86: 514524.Google Scholar
Ostapkovich ND, Baker KZ, Fogarty-Mack P, Sisti MB, Young WL. Cerebral blood flow and CO2 reactivity is similar during remifentanil/N2O and fentanyl/N2O anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1998; 89: 358363.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: 10311040.Google Scholar
Westmoreland CL, Hoke JF, Sebel PS, Hug CC, Muir KT. Pharmacokinetics of remifentanil (GI87084B) and its major metabolite (GI90291) in patients undergoing elective inpatient surgery. Anesthesiology 1993; 79: 893903.Google Scholar
Hughes MA, Glass PSA, Jacobs JR. Context-sensitive half-time in multicompartment pharmacokinetic models for intravenous anesthetic drugs. Anesthesiology 1992; 76: 334341.Google Scholar
Pinaud M, Lelausque JN, Chetanneau A, Fauchoux N, Ménégalli D, Souron R. Effects of propofol on cerebral hemodynamics and metabolism in patients with brain trauma. Anesthesiology 1990; 73: 404409.Google Scholar
Cavazzuti M, Porro CA, Barbieri A, Galetti A. Brain and spinal cord metabolic activity during propofol anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 1991; 66: 490495.Google Scholar
Loop T, Priebe HJ. Recovery after anesthesia with remifentanil combined with propofol, desflurane, or sevoflurane for otorhinolaryngeal surgery. Anesth Analg 2000; 91: 123129.Google Scholar
Todd MM, Warner DS, Sokoll MD, et al. A prospective, comparative trial of three anesthetics for elective supratentorial craniotomy. Propofol/fentanyl, isoflurane/nitrous oxide, and fentanyl/nitrous oxide. Anesthesiology 1993; 78: 10051020.Google Scholar
From RP, Warner DS, Todd MM, Sokoll MD. Anesthesia for craniotomy: A double-blind comparison of alfentanil, fentanyl, and sufentanil. Anesthesiology 1990: 73: 896904.Google Scholar
Balakrishnan G, Raudzens P, Samra SK, et al. A comparison of remifentanil and fentanyl in patients undergoing surgery for intracranial mass lesions. Anesth Analg 2000; 91: 163169.Google Scholar
Bruder N, Stordeur JM, Ravussin P, et al. Metabolic and hemodynamic changes during recovery and tracheal extubation in neurosurgical patients: immediate versus delayed recovery. Anesth Analg 1999; 89: 674678.Google Scholar
Coriat P, Beaussier M. Fast-tracking after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Anesth Analg 2001; 92: 10811083.Google Scholar
Göbel H, Heller O, Nowak T, Westphal W. Zur Korrespondenz von Schmerzreiz und Schmerzerleben. Der Schmerz 1988; 2: 205.Google Scholar
Dowd NP, Cheng DCH, Karski JM, Wong DT, Munro JAC, Sandler AN. Intraoperative awareness in fast-track cardiac anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1998; 89: 10681073.Google Scholar
Shafer SL, Varvel JR. Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and rational opioid selection. Anesthesiology 1991; 74: 5363.Google Scholar
Vuyk J. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between opioids and propofol. J Clin Anesth 1997; 9: 23S26S.Google Scholar
Warner DS. Experience with remifentanil in neurosurgical patients. Anesth Analg 1999; 89: S33S39.Google Scholar
Hall AP, Thompson JP, Leslie NAP, Fox AJ, Kumar N, Rowbotham DJ. Comparison of different doses of remifentanil on the cardiovascular response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth 2000; 84: 100102.Google Scholar
De Benedittis G, Lorenzetti A, Migliore M, Spagnoli D, Tiberio F, Villani RM. Postoperative pain in neurosurgery: a pilot study in brain surgery. Neurosurgery 1996; 38: 466469.Google Scholar
Sneyd JR, Whaley A, Dimpel HL, Andrews CJH. An open, randomized comparison of alfentanil, remifentanil and alfentanil followed by remifentanil in anaesthesia for craniotomy. Br J Anaesth 1998; 81: 361364.Google Scholar
Schubert A, Mascha EJ, Bloomfield EL, DeBoer GE, Gupta MK, Ebrahim ZY. Effect of cranial surgery and brain tumor size on emergence from anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1996; 85: 513521.Google Scholar
Tramèr M, Moore A, McQuay H. Propofol anaesthesia and postoperative nausea and vomiting: quantitative systematic review of randomized controlled studies. Br J Anaesth 1997; 78: 247255.Google Scholar