1998Regional Anesthesia & Pain MedicineRequires access

Comparison of remifentanil and propofol infusions for sedation during regional anesthesia*1

Marilyn Lauwers

Open publisher page 37 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patients treated with regional anesthesia often require concomitant medication for comfort and sedation. Propofol is widely used for this purpose. Remifentanil, a new ultra-short-acting opioid, exhibits at low doses distinct sedative properties that may be useful for supplementation of regional anesthesia. This study compared the effectiveness of remifentanil and propofol infusions for providing sedation during regional block placement and surgery. METHODS: In an open, prospective trial, 28 patients were randomly allocated to receive continuous infusions of remifentanil (6 microg/kg/h) or propofol (3 mg/kg/h) for sedation during spinal or axillary regional anesthesia. Infusion rates were titrated to maintain a sedation level > or = 2 as assessed with the Observer's Assessment of Alertness Scale. Vital signs were measured continuously, during and for 2 hours after ending study drug infusion. RESULTS: Similar scores for comfort and sedation were obtained in both groups during placement of the regional block and during surgery. Degree of sedation correlated with drug infusion rate of remifentanil (P < .002) but not for propofol. Respiratory rate decreased in the remifentanil group in absence of surgery (P < .05). Mean arterial pressure and heart rate were 20% lower in the propofol group (P < .05). Return to alertness occurred after 10 +/- 6 minutes in the remifentanil group and after 16 +/- 15 minutes in the propofol group. Similar incidences of hypotension, bradycardia, and nausea and vomiting were found in both groups, but intraoperative respiratory depression and nausea were more prominent in the remifentanil group. CONCLUSIONS: When titrated to the same sedation level, remifentanil provided a smoother hemodynamic profile than propofol during regional anesthesia. The frequent occurrence of remifentanil-induced respiratory depression requires cautious administration of this agent. The incidence of adverse reactions seen with both agents during and after their administration makes the management of such sedative infusion techniques difficult.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patients treated with regional anesthesia often require concomitant medication for comfort and sedation. Propofol is widely used for this purpose. Remifentanil, a new ultra-short-acting opioid, exhibits at low doses distinct sedative properties that may be useful for supplementation of regional anesthesia. This study compared the effectiveness of remifentanil and propofol infusions for providing sedation during regional block placement and surgery. METHODS: In an open, prospective trial, 28 patients were randomly allocated to receive continuous infusions of remifentanil (6 microg/kg/h) or propofol (3 mg/kg/h) for sedation during spinal or axillary regional anesthesia. Infusion rates were titrated to maintain a sedation level > or = 2 as assessed with the Observer's Assessment of Alertness Scale. Vital signs were measured continuously, during and for 2 hours after ending study drug infusion. RESULTS: Similar scores for comfort and sedation were obtained in both groups during placement of the regional block and during surgery. Degree of sedation correlated with drug infusion rate of remifentanil (P < .002) but not for propofol. Respiratory rate decreased in the remifentanil group in absence of surgery (P < .05). Mean arterial pressure and heart rate were 20% lower in the propofol group (P < .05). Return to alertness occurred after 10 +/- 6 minutes in the remifentanil group and after 16 +/- 15 minutes in the propofol group. Similar incidences of hypotension, bradycardia, and nausea and vomiting were found in both groups, but intraoperative respiratory depression and nausea were more prominent in the remifentanil group. CONCLUSIONS: When titrated to the same sedation level, remifentanil provided a smoother hemodynamic profile than propofol during regional anesthesia. The frequent occurrence of remifentanil-induced respiratory depression requires cautious administration of this agent. The incidence of adverse reactions seen with both agents during and after their administration makes the management of such sedative infusion techniques difficult.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 37 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patients treated with regional anesthesia often require concomitant medication for comfort and sedation. Propofol is widely used for this purpose. Remifentanil, a new ultra-short-acting opioid, exhibits at low doses distinct sedative properties that may be useful for supplementation of regional anesthesia. This study compared the effectiveness of remifentanil and propofol infusions for providing sedation during regional block placement and surgery. METHODS: In an open, prospective trial, 28 patients were randomly allocated to receive continuous infusions of remifentanil (6 microg/kg/h) or propofol (3 mg/kg/h) for sedation during spinal or axillary regional anesthesia. Infusion rates were titrated to maintain a sedation level > or = 2 as assessed with the Observer's Assessment of Alertness Scale. Vital signs were measured continuously, during and for 2 hours after ending study drug infusion. RESULTS: Similar scores for comfort and sedation were obtained in both groups during placement of the regional block and during surgery. Degree of sedation correlated with drug infusion rate of remifentanil (P < .002) but not for propofol. Respiratory rate decreased in the remifentanil group in absence of surgery (P < .05). Mean arterial pressure and heart rate were 20% lower in the propofol group (P < .05). Return to alertness occurred after 10 +/- 6 minutes in the remifentanil group and after 16 +/- 15 minutes in the propofol group. Similar incidences of hypotension, bradycardia, and nausea and vomiting were found in both groups, but intraoperative respiratory depression and nausea were more prominent in the remifentanil group. CONCLUSIONS: When titrated to the same sedation level, remifentanil provided a smoother hemodynamic profile than propofol during regional anesthesia. The frequent occurrence of remifentanil-induced respiratory depression requires cautious administration of this agent. The incidence of adverse reactions seen with both agents during and after their administration makes the management of such sedative infusion techniques difficult.

Key concepts: Remifentanil, Medicine, Propofol, Anesthesia, Sedation, Sedative, Heart rate, Nausea

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of remifentanil and propofol infusions for sedation during regional anesthesia*1 — Research Paper | ScholarLens