The anilidopiperidine opioid remifentanil has pharmacodynamic properties similar to all opioids; however, its pharmacokinetic characteristics are unique. Favourable pharmacokinetic properties, minimally altered by extremes of age or renal or hepatic dysfunction, enable easy titration and rapid dissipation of clinical effect of this agent, even after prolonged infusion. Remifentanil is metabolised by esterases that are widespread throughout the plasma, red blood cells, and interstitial tissues, whereas other anilidopiperidine opioids (e.g. fentanyl, alfentanil and sufentanil) depend upon hepatic biotransformation and renal excretion for elimination. Consequently, remifentanil is cleared considerably more rapidly than other anilidopiperidine opioids. In addition, its pKa (the pH at which the drug is 50% ionised) is less than physiological pH; thus, remifentanil circulates primarily in the non-ionised moiety, which quickly penetrates the lipid blood-brain barrier and rapidly equilibrates across the plasma/effect site interface. By virtue of these distinctive pharmacokinetic properties, the context-sensitive half-time (i.e. the time required for the drug's plasma concentration to decrease by 50% after cessation of an infusion) of remifentanil remains consistently short (3.2 minutes), even following an infusion of long duration (> or =8 hours). Remifentanil, a clinically versatile opioid, is useful for intravenous analgesia and sedation in spontaneously breathing patients undergoing painful procedures. Profound analgesia may be achieved with minimal effect on cognitive function. Remifentanil may also provide sedation and analgesia during placement of regional anaesthetic blocks, and in conjunction with topical anaesthesia and airway nerve blocks, it may be useful for blunting reflex responses and facilitating 'awake' fibreoptic intubation. Compared with fentanyl and alfentanil in a day-surgery setting, remifentanil supplementation of general anaesthesia may improve intraoperative haemodynamic control. Both emergence time and the incidence of respiratory depression during post-anaesthetic recovery may be reduced. However, outcomes such as home discharge time, post-emergence adverse effect profile, and patient and provider satisfaction are not significantly improved, and the incidence of intraoperative hypotension and bradycardia is greater. In addition, drug acquisition costs for remifentanil are higher and clinicians may need extra time to familiarise themselves with the drug's unique pharmacokinetics.Ironically, the quick dissipation of opioid analgesic effect following remifentanil discontinuation may be a significant clinical disadvantage. Unless little or no postoperative pain is anticipated, the clinician may wish to treat prospectively using local or regional anaesthesia, non-opioid analgesics, or longer-acting opioid analgesics.
The unique pharmacokinetic properties of remifentanil make it a potentially useful adjuvant during general anesthesia for ambulatory surgery. Fentanyl, inexpensive and easy to administer, is the most common opioid used for this purpose. As an adjuvant to general anesthesia for outpatient gynecologic surgery, we questioned if remifentanil was cost-effective as an alternative to fentanyl. Thirty-four patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy or hysteroscopy were prospectively and randomly assigned to a standard practice (n = 18) or a study (n = 16) group. Standard practice patients received fentanyl (3 microg/kg) before induction; study patients received remifentanil by continuous infusion (0.5 microg x kg. min(-1) at induction, then 0.2 microg x kg x min(-1)). Sevoflurane was titrated to a Bispectral index value of 40-55. We investigated recovery profiles, patient and health care professional satisfaction, and drug costs. The incidence of rescue antiemetic treatment (2 of 16 vs. 8 of 18; P = 0.013) and the nausea visual analog scale scores during second stage recovery (0.2 vs. 0.6; P = 0.044) were more frequent in the study group. However, the incidence of intraoperative adverse events and other postoperative sequelae, recovery times, pain and nausea visual analog scale scores, opioid analgesic dosage requirements in the postanesthetic care unit, and satisfaction survey responses were similar between groups. Perioperative drug costs per patient were $17.72 more in the remifentanil (vs. fentanyl) group.
In this prospective, randomized study, 23 patients having spinal anaesthesia for transurethral prostatectomy (TURP) were evaluated for the adequacy of their block using a visual analog pain score (VAPS). Each patient with a "standard" (> or = T10) block level (n = 5) or "intermediate" (L1 or T12) block level (n = 5) found the block adequate. Sixty-two percent (8/13) of patients with a "low" (< or = L3) block level found their block adequate. The VAPS was assessed every five minutes or whenever pain abruptly increased during TURP; an "inadequate block" was defined as a VAPS > or = 5/10 during prostatic resection. Intravesical pressure was monitored and kept < 15 mmHg to distinguish between pain from bladder distension and from prostatic resection. "Low" block patients (LBP) who found their block inadequate (n = 5) received supplemental intrathecal local anaesthetic given through a spinal catheter. The subsequent L1 block level was adequate for TURP. In LBP, who found their block adequate (n = 8), a higher (P < 0.01) VAPS was observed than in patients with a "standard" block level. However, a smaller (P < 0.05) maximum percent decrease in diastolic blood pressure was found in LBPs, than in "intermediate" or "standard" block patients. It is concluded that a spinal block > or = L1 is adequate during TURP when bladder pressure is monitored and kept low. Mid-lumbar block levels should be reserved for patients in whom the benefit of minimizing haemodynamic changes outweighs the risk of a "less complete" anaesthetic.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.