SummaryThe efficacy and safety of remifentanil and alfentanil for patients undergoing major abdominal surgery were compared. Premedicated patients received a loading dose of remifentanil (1.0 mg.kg ¹1 ; n ¼ 116) and a continuous infusion of 0.5 mg.kg ¹1 .min ¹1 , or a loading dose of alfentanil (25 mg.kg ¹1 ; n ¼ 118) and a continuous infusion of 1.0 mg.kg ¹1 .min ¹1 . Propofol was administered (10 mg every 10 s) until loss of consciousness. Patients' lungs were ventilated with 66% nitrous oxide and 0.5% (end-tidal) isoflurane in oxygen. The study drug infusion rate was reduced by 50% 5 min after intubation. Alfentanil was discontinued 15 min before the end of surgery, whereas remifentanil was continued in the immediate postoperative period at a reduced dose. Responses to intubation (28%) and skin incision (17%) occurred approximately twice as often in the alfentanil group (15% and 8%; p ¼ 0.014 and p ¼ 0.037, respectively). More patients receiving alfentanil had one or more responses to surgery (72% vs. 57%; p ¼ 0.016). The time to spontaneous respiration, adequate respiration, response to verbal command and time to recovery room discharge were similar. However, owing to decreased variability, the time to extubation was shorter with remifentanil than with alfentanil (p ¼ 0.048). There was a similar overall incidence of adverse events in both groups, 82% and 75% of patients, respectively. Adverse events associated with remifentanil were rapidly controlled by dose reductions. The incidence of intra-operative hypotension and bradycardia was higher in the remifentanil group (p Յ 0.033). An initial remifentanil infusion rate of 0.1 mg.kg ¹1 .min ¹1 titrated to individual need provided postoperative pain relief in the presence of adequate respiration in 71% of patients. When using remifentanil in the immediate postoperative setting, rapid administration of bolus doses and infusion rate increases resulted in a relatively high incidence of muscle rigidity, respiratory depression and apnoea. Changing the postoperative regimen to avoid rapid changes in remifentanil blood concentration resulted in more effective analgesia and dramatically reduced the incidence of adverse events during this period. In patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, remifentanil appears to offer superior intra-operative haemodynamic stability during stressful surgical events compared with alfentanil without compromising recovery from anaesthesia. Remifentanil can be administered as a postoperative analgesic agent at a starting dose of 0.1 mg.kg ¹1 .min ¹1 ; however, it should only be used in the presence of adequate supervision and monitoring of the patient. Administration of bolus doses is not recommended in this setting.

GW274150 at doses predicted to inhibit iNOS >80% did not differ from placebo in the prophylaxis of migraine. The results do not support a role of iNOS inhibition in migraine prevention.

Although RA accumulates in patients with moderate/severe renal impairment, pharmacokinetic modelling predicts that RA concentrations during a 9 microg kg(-1) h(-1) remifentanil infusion for up to 15 days would not exceed those reported in the present study, for which no associated prolongation of mu-opioid effects was observed.

IntroductionThis randomised, open-label, multicentre study compared the safety and efficacy of an analgesia-based sedation regime using remifentanil with a conventional hypnoticbased sedation regime in critically ill patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation for up to 10 days.

IntroductionThis randomised, open-label, observational, multicentre, parallel group study assessed the safety and efficacy of analgesia-based sedation using remifentanil in the neuro-intensive care unit.MethodsPatients aged 18–80 years admitted to the intensive care unit within the previous 24 hours, with acute brain injury or after neurosurgery, intubated, expected to require mechanical ventilation for 1–5 days and requiring daily downward titration of sedation for assessment of neurological function were studied. Patients received one of two treatment regimens. Regimen one consisted of analgesia-based sedation, in which remifentanil (initial rate 9 μg kg-1 h-1) was titrated before the addition of a hypnotic agent (propofol [0.5 mg kg-1 h-1] during days 1–3, midazolam [0.03 mg kg-1 h-1] during days 4 and 5) (n = 84). Regimen two consisted of hypnotic-based sedation: hypnotic agent (propofol days 1–3; midazolam days 4 and 5) and fentanyl (n = 37) or morphine (n = 40) according to routine clinical practice. For each regimen, agents were titrated to achieve optimal sedation (Sedation–Agitation Scale score 1–3) and analgesia (Pain Intensity score 1–2).ResultsOverall, between-patient variability around the time of neurological assessment was statistically significantly smaller when using remifentanil (remifentanil 0.44 versus fentanyl 0.86 [P = 0.024] versus morphine 0.98 [P = 0.006]. Overall, mean neurological assessment times were significantly shorter when using remifentanil (remifentanil 0.41 hour versus fentanyl 0.71 hour [P = 0.001] versus morphine 0.82 hour [P < 0.001]). Patients receiving the remifentanil-based regimen were extubated significantly faster than those treated with morphine (1.0 hour versus 1.93 hour, P = 0.001) but there was no difference between remifentanil and fentanyl. Remifentanil was effective, well tolerated and provided comparable haemodynamic stability to that of the hypnotic-based regimen. Over three times as many users rated analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil as very good or excellent in facilitating assessment of neurological function compared with the hypnotic-based regimen.ConclusionsAnalgesia-based sedation with remifentanil permitted significantly faster and more predictable awakening for neurological assessment. Analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil was very effective, well tolerated and had a similar adverse event and haemodynamic profile to those of hypnotic-based regimens when used in critically ill neuro-intensive care unit patients for up to 5 days.