Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hackner, C.
Right arrow Articles by Kochs, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hackner, C.
Right arrow Articles by Kochs, E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2003, Vol. 91, No. 4 580-582
© 2003 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

Short Communications

Early recovery after remifentanil-pronounced compared with propofol-pronounced total intravenous anaesthesia for short painful procedures{dagger}

C. Hackner, O. Detsch*, G. Schneider, S. Jelen-Esselborn and E. Kochs

Klinik für Anaesthesiologie, Technische Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Ismaningerstr. 22, D-81675 Munich, Germany

Corresponding author. E-mail: o.detsch@lrz.tum.de
{dagger}Presented in part at the annual meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Orlando, USA, October 2002.

Background. We compared recovery from high-dose propofol/low-dose remifentanil (‘propofol-pronounced’) compared with high-dose remifentanil/low-dose propofol (‘remifentanil-pronounced’) anaesthesia.

Methods. Adult patients having panendoscopy, microlaryngoscopy, or tonsillectomy were randomly assigned to receive either propofol-pronounced (propofol 100 µg kg–1 min–1; remifentanil 0.15 µg kg–1 min–1) or remifentanil-pronounced (propofol 50 µg kg–1 min–1; remifentanil 0.45 µg kg–1 min–1) anaesthesia. In both groups, the procedure was started with remifentanil 0.4 µg kg–1, propofol 2 mg kg–1, and mivacurium 0.2 mg kg–1. Cardiovascular measurements and EEG bispectral index (BIS) were recorded. To maintain comparable anaesthetic depth, additional propofol (0.5 mg kg–1) was given if BIS values were greater than 55 and remifentanil (0.4 µg kg–1) if heart rate or arterial pressure was greater than 110% of pre-anaesthetic values.

Results. Patient and surgical characteristics, cardiovascular measurements, and BIS values were similar in both groups. There were no differences in recovery times between the groups (time to extubation: 12.7 (4.5) vs 12.0 (3.6) min, readiness for transfer to the recovery ward: 14.4 (4.4) vs. 13.7 (3.6) min, mean (SD)).

Conclusions. In patients having short painful surgery, less propofol does not give faster recovery as long as the same anaesthetic level (as indicated by BIS and clinical signs) is maintained by more remifentanil. However, recovery times were less variable following remifentanil-pronounced anaesthesia suggesting a more predictable recovery.

Br J Anaesth 2003; 91: 580–2


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.