Skip Navigation



BJA Advance Access published online on April 10, 2007

British Journal of Anaesthesia, doi:10.1093/bja/aem069
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
98/5/598    most recent
aem069v1
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 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 arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Steinlechner, B.
Right arrow Articles by Rajek, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Steinlechner, B.
Right arrow Articles by Rajek, A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2007. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Low-dose remifentanil to suppress haemodynamic responses to noxious stimuli in cardiac surgery: a dose-finding study

B. Steinlechner*, M. Dworschak, B. Birkenberg, T. Lang, A. Schiferer, A. Moritz, B. Mora and A. Rajek

Division of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital Vienna, Vienna, Austria

* Corresponding author: Division of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. E-mail: barbara.steinlechner{at}meduniwien.ac.at

Background: High-dose remifentanil (1–5 µg kg–1 min–1), commonly used for cardiac surgery, has been associated with muscle rigidity, hypotension, bradycardia, and reduced cardiac output. The aim of this study was to determine an optimal lower remifentanil dose, which should be accompanied by fewer adverse events, that still effectively suppresses haemodynamic responses to typical stressful stimuli (i.e. intubation, skin incision, and sternotomy).

Methods: Total i.v. anaesthesia consisted of a target-controlled propofol (2 µg ml–1) and a remifentanil infusion. Forty patients were allocated to receive either a constant infusion of remifentanil at 0.1 µg kg–1 min–1 or up-titrations to 0.2, 0.3, or 0.4 µg kg–1 min–1, respectively, 5 min before each stimulus. Subsequently, changes in heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure were recorded for 8 min. Increases exceeding 20% of baseline were considered to be of clinical relevance. Patients who exhibited these alterations were termed responders.

Results: The number of responders was less with the two higher remifentanil dosages (P < 0.05) while propofol target doses could either be kept at the same level or even be reduced without affecting the plane of anaesthesia. Although single phenylephrine bolus had to be applied more frequently in these two groups (P < 0.05), no severe haemodynamic depression was observed.

Conclusions: Remifentanil at 0.3 and 0.4 µg kg–1 min–1 in combination with a target-controlled propofol infusion in the pre-bypass period is well tolerated. It appears to mitigate potentially hazardous haemodynamic responses from stressful stimuli equally well as higher doses when compared with data from the literature.

Keywords: anaesthetic techniques, i.v. infusion; analgesics opioid, remifentanil; cardiovascular anaesthesia; monitoring, bispectral index; stress


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Br J AnaesthHome page
M. Zaballos, C. Jimeno, J. Almendral, F. Atienza, D. Patino, E. Valdes, J. Navia, and M. J. Anadon
Cardiac electrophysiological effects of remifentanil: study in a closed-chest porcine model
Br. J. Anaesth., August 1, 2009; 103(2): 191 - 198.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



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.