Gustorff B, Hoerauf K H, Lierz P, Kress H G
Department of Anaesthesia and General Intensive Care Medicine (B), University of Vienna, Währinger-Gürtel 18-20, A-1090 Vienna, Austria.
Br J Anaesth. 2003 Aug;91(2):203-8. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeg161.
The aim of this study was to compare thermal and current sensory testing stimuli with respect to opioid responsiveness.
Eighteen healthy volunteers were randomized in a placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover study to receive an infusion of remifentanil 0.08 micro g kg(-1) min(-1) or saline for 40 min. Test procedures included determination of pain perception thresholds (PPT) and pain tolerance thresholds (PTT) to heat, cold, and current at 5, 250 and 2000 Hz, at baseline and at the end of the infusion.
Both current at 5 Hz (PPT 3.69 (SD 2.48) mA vs 2.01 (1.52) mA; PTT 6.42 (2.79) mA vs 3.63 (2.31) mA; P<0.001) and 250 Hz (PPT 4.31 (2.42) mA vs 2.89 (1.57) mA; PTT 7.08 (2.68) mA vs 4.81 (2.42) mA; P<0.001) and heat (PPT 47.4 (2.7) degrees C vs 45.2 (3) degrees C; PTT 51.1 (1.8) degrees C vs 49.7 (1.8) degrees C; P<0.05) detected a significant analgesic effect of remifentanil compared with placebo. No analgesic effect was shown on cold or current at 2000 Hz. The magnitude of responsiveness of current stimuli at 5 Hz and 250 Hz was superior to heat stimuli.
Both current (5 and 250 Hz) and heat sensory testing detected a significant analgesic effect of a remifentanil infusion compared with saline. There was more response to current testing.
本研究旨在比较热觉和电流感觉测试刺激在阿片类药物反应性方面的情况。
18名健康志愿者被随机分配到一项安慰剂对照、双盲交叉研究中,接受40分钟的瑞芬太尼输注,剂量为0.08μg·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹,或输注生理盐水。测试程序包括在基线和输注结束时,测定对5、250和2000Hz的热、冷和电流的痛觉阈(PPT)和痛耐受阈(PTT)。
与安慰剂相比,5Hz电流(PPT:3.69(标准差2.48)mA对2.01(1.52)mA;PTT:6.42(2.79)mA对3.63(2.31)mA;P<0.001)、250Hz电流(PPT:4.31(2.42)mA对2.89(1.57)mA;PTT:7.08(2.68)mA对4.81(2.42)mA;P<0.001)和热觉(PPT:47.4(2.7)℃对45.2(3)℃;PTT:51.1(1.8)℃对49.7(1.8)℃;P<0.05)均检测到瑞芬太尼有显著的镇痛作用。在2000Hz时,冷觉或电流未显示出镇痛作用。5Hz和250Hz电流刺激的反应程度优于热刺激。
与生理盐水相比,电流(5Hz和250Hz)和热觉测试均检测到瑞芬太尼输注有显著的镇痛作用。电流测试的反应更强。