Haemodynamic effects of remifentanil during induction of general anaesthesia with propofol. A randomised trial.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-24 DOI:10.1111/aas.14394
Gunnar Helge Sjøen, Ragnhild Sørum Falk, Tor Hugo Hauge, Tor Inge Tønnessen, Eldrid Langesæter
{"title":"Haemodynamic effects of remifentanil during induction of general anaesthesia with propofol. A randomised trial.","authors":"Gunnar Helge Sjøen, Ragnhild Sørum Falk, Tor Hugo Hauge, Tor Inge Tønnessen, Eldrid Langesæter","doi":"10.1111/aas.14394","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Remifentanil may have a dose-dependent haemodynamic effect during the induction of general anaesthesia combined with propofol. Our objective was to investigate whether systolic arterial blood pressure (SAP) was reduced to a greater extent when the remifentanil dose was increased.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomised, double-blind, dose-controlled study was conducted at the Day Surgery Unit of Haugesund Hospital, Norway. Ninety-nine healthy women scheduled for gynaecological surgery were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive remifentanil induction with a low, medium or high dose corresponding to maximum effect-site concentrations (Ce) of 2, 4 and 8 ng/mL. The induction dose of propofol was 1.8 mg/kg, with a Ce of 2.9 μg/mL. Anaesthesia was induced using target-controlled infusion. After 150 s of sedation, a bolus of remifentanil and propofol was administered. Baseline was defined as 55-5 s before the bolus dose, and the total observation time was 450 s. We used beat-to-beat haemodynamic monitoring with LiDCOplus. The primary outcome variable was the maximum decrease in SAP within 5 min after bolus administration of remifentanil and propofol. Absolute and relative changes from baseline to minimal values and the area under the curve (AUC) were used as effect measures. Comparisons of groups were performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Median remifentanil doses were 0.75, 1.5 and 3.0 μg/kg in the low-, medium- and high-dose groups, respectively. The absolute changes (mean ± standard deviation) in SAP in the low-, medium- and high-dose groups of remifentanil were -39 ± 9.6 versus -43 ± 9.1, and -41 ± 10 mmHg, respectively. No difference (95% confidence interval) in the absolute change in SAP was observed between the groups (ANOVA, p = .29); medium versus low dose 3.7 (-2.0, 9.4) mmHg, and high versus medium dose -2.2 (-8.0; 3.5) mmHg. The relative changes from baseline to minimum SAP values were -30% versus -32% versus -32% (p = .52). The between-group differences in the AUC were not statistically significant. Relative changes in heart rate (-20% vs. -21% vs. -21%), stroke volume (-19% vs. -16% vs. -16%), cardiac output (-32% vs. -32% vs. -32%), systemic vascular resistance (-24% vs. -27% vs. -28%), and AUC were not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This trial demonstrated major haemodynamic changes during the induction of anaesthesia with remifentanil and propofol. However, we did not observe any statistically significant differences between low, medium or high doses of remifentanil when using continuous invasive high-accuracy beat-to-beat monitoring.</p>","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14394","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Remifentanil may have a dose-dependent haemodynamic effect during the induction of general anaesthesia combined with propofol. Our objective was to investigate whether systolic arterial blood pressure (SAP) was reduced to a greater extent when the remifentanil dose was increased.

Methods: This randomised, double-blind, dose-controlled study was conducted at the Day Surgery Unit of Haugesund Hospital, Norway. Ninety-nine healthy women scheduled for gynaecological surgery were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive remifentanil induction with a low, medium or high dose corresponding to maximum effect-site concentrations (Ce) of 2, 4 and 8 ng/mL. The induction dose of propofol was 1.8 mg/kg, with a Ce of 2.9 μg/mL. Anaesthesia was induced using target-controlled infusion. After 150 s of sedation, a bolus of remifentanil and propofol was administered. Baseline was defined as 55-5 s before the bolus dose, and the total observation time was 450 s. We used beat-to-beat haemodynamic monitoring with LiDCOplus. The primary outcome variable was the maximum decrease in SAP within 5 min after bolus administration of remifentanil and propofol. Absolute and relative changes from baseline to minimal values and the area under the curve (AUC) were used as effect measures. Comparisons of groups were performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Results: Median remifentanil doses were 0.75, 1.5 and 3.0 μg/kg in the low-, medium- and high-dose groups, respectively. The absolute changes (mean ± standard deviation) in SAP in the low-, medium- and high-dose groups of remifentanil were -39 ± 9.6 versus -43 ± 9.1, and -41 ± 10 mmHg, respectively. No difference (95% confidence interval) in the absolute change in SAP was observed between the groups (ANOVA, p = .29); medium versus low dose 3.7 (-2.0, 9.4) mmHg, and high versus medium dose -2.2 (-8.0; 3.5) mmHg. The relative changes from baseline to minimum SAP values were -30% versus -32% versus -32% (p = .52). The between-group differences in the AUC were not statistically significant. Relative changes in heart rate (-20% vs. -21% vs. -21%), stroke volume (-19% vs. -16% vs. -16%), cardiac output (-32% vs. -32% vs. -32%), systemic vascular resistance (-24% vs. -27% vs. -28%), and AUC were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: This trial demonstrated major haemodynamic changes during the induction of anaesthesia with remifentanil and propofol. However, we did not observe any statistically significant differences between low, medium or high doses of remifentanil when using continuous invasive high-accuracy beat-to-beat monitoring.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用异丙酚诱导全身麻醉时瑞芬太尼对血流动力学的影响。随机试验。
背景:在使用异丙酚进行全身麻醉诱导时,瑞芬太尼可能会对血流动力学产生剂量依赖性影响。我们的目的是研究当瑞芬太尼剂量增加时,收缩动脉血压(SAP)是否会在更大程度上降低:这项随机、双盲、剂量对照研究在挪威豪格松医院日间手术室进行。99名计划接受妇科手术的健康女性按1:1:1的比例随机分配接受低、中或高剂量的瑞芬太尼诱导,其最大效应部位浓度(Ce)分别为2、4和8纳克/毫升。异丙酚的诱导剂量为 1.8 毫克/千克,Ce 为 2.9 微克/毫升。麻醉诱导采用靶控输注法。镇静150秒后,注射瑞芬太尼和异丙酚。基线定义为给药前 55-5 秒,总观察时间为 450 秒。我们使用 LiDCOplus 进行逐搏血流动力学监测。主要结果变量是瑞芬太尼和异丙酚栓剂给药后 5 分钟内 SAP 的最大降幅。从基线到最小值的绝对值和相对值变化以及曲线下面积(AUC)被用作效果测量指标。组间比较采用方差分析(ANOVA):低、中、高剂量组的瑞芬太尼中位剂量分别为 0.75、1.5 和 3.0 μg/kg。瑞芬太尼低、中、高剂量组 SAP 的绝对变化(平均值 ± 标准偏差)分别为 -39 ± 9.6 对 -43 ± 9.1 和 -41 ± 10 mmHg。组间 SAP 绝对变化无差异(95% 置信区间)(方差分析,P = .29);中剂量与低剂量相比为 3.7 (-2.0, 9.4) mmHg,高剂量与中剂量相比为 -2.2 (-8.0; 3.5) mmHg。从基线到最小 SAP 值的相对变化为 -30% 对 -32% 对 -32% (P = .52)。组间 AUC 差异无统计学意义。心率(-20% vs. -21% vs. -21%)、每搏量(-19% vs. -16% vs. -16%)、心输出量(-32% vs. -32% vs. -32%)、全身血管阻力(-24% vs. -27% vs. -28%)和 AUC 的相对变化无统计学意义:这项试验表明,在使用瑞芬太尼和异丙酚进行麻醉诱导时,血流动力学会发生重大变化。然而,在使用连续有创高精度搏动监测时,我们没有观察到低剂量、中等剂量或高剂量瑞芬太尼之间存在任何统计学意义上的显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.
期刊最新文献
Prevalence and etiology of ventilator-associated pneumonia during the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark: Wave-dependent lessons learned from a mixed-ICU. Lack of correlation between biomarkers and acute kidney injury after pediatric cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass: Should be look for something else? Quantity: More markers, more merit Serious adverse events reporting in recent randomised clinical trials in intensive care medicine – A methodological study protocol In-hospital cardiac arrest registries and aetiology of cardiac arrest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1