Moerman Annelies T, Herregods Luc L, De Vos Martine M, Mortier Eric P, Struys Michel M R F
Department of Anesthesiology, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Gent, Belgium.
Anesth Analg. 2009 Mar;108(3):828-34. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e318198f6dc.
The combination of propofol-remifentanil for procedural deep sedation in spontaneously breathing patients is characterized by the frequent incidence of side effects, especially respiratory depression. These side effects may be due to either the drug combination or the drug delivery technique. Target-controlled infusion (TCI) might optimize drug delivery. In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study in patients undergoing elective colonoscopy, we thus tried to answer two questions: first, if adding remifentanil to propofol surpasses the disadvantages of the combination of these two products, and second, if administration of remifentanil via TCI decreases the incidence of side effects, compared to manually controlled administration.
Patients undergoing elective colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive remifentanil via manually controlled continuous infusion (MCI) (0.125 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) for 2 min followed by a continuous infusion of 0.05 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)), TCI remifentanil (1 ng/mL), or placebo (normal saline either as TCI or manual infusion of equivalent rate). All patients received TCI propofol, adjusted to a target concentration level that provided deep sedation in which patients were not responsive to verbal commands, but maintained spontaneous ventilation without assistance.
Significantly more patients in the placebo group showed movement, cough and hiccup, which transiently interfered with the examination. There were no clinically significant differences in hemodynamic or recovery variables among all groups. Remifentanil administered via TCI resulted in a decrease in propofol requirements. The incidence of hypopnea and apnea was less frequent when remifentanil was administered via TCI compared to MCI (TCI n = 7, MCI n = 16, P < 0.05).
The combination of remifentanil and propofol for deep sedation in spontaneously breathing patients, offered better conditions for colonoscopy than propofol used as a single drug. Remifentanil administered via TCI resulted in a decrease in propofol dosing and in a lower incidence in apnea and respiratory depression (TCI n = 7, MCI n = 16, P < 0.05), compared to manually controlled administration of remifentanil.
丙泊酚-瑞芬太尼联合用于自主呼吸患者的程序性深度镇静,其特点是副作用发生率高,尤其是呼吸抑制。这些副作用可能是由于药物组合或给药技术所致。靶控输注(TCI)可能会优化药物给药。因此,在这项针对接受择期结肠镜检查患者的前瞻性、随机、双盲研究中,我们试图回答两个问题:第一,丙泊酚中加入瑞芬太尼是否能克服这两种药物联合使用的缺点;第二,与手动控制给药相比,通过TCI给药瑞芬太尼是否能降低副作用的发生率。
将接受择期结肠镜检查的患者随机分配,分别通过手动控制持续输注(MCI)(先以0.125微克·千克⁻¹·分钟⁻¹输注2分钟,随后以0.05微克·千克⁻¹·分钟⁻¹持续输注)、TCI瑞芬太尼(1纳克/毫升)或安慰剂(作为TCI或同等速率手动输注的生理盐水)接受瑞芬太尼。所有患者均接受TCI丙泊酚,调整至目标浓度水平以提供深度镇静,即患者对言语指令无反应,但能维持自主通气且无需辅助。
安慰剂组中有明显更多的患者出现活动、咳嗽和打嗝,这些情况短暂干扰了检查。所有组之间在血流动力学或恢复变量方面无临床显著差异。通过TCI给药瑞芬太尼导致丙泊酚需求量减少。与MCI相比,通过TCI给药瑞芬太尼时,呼吸浅慢和呼吸暂停的发生率更低(TCI组n = 7,MCI组n = 16,P < 0.05)。
瑞芬太尼与丙泊酚联合用于自主呼吸患者的深度镇静,比单独使用丙泊酚为结肠镜检查提供了更好的条件。与手动控制给药瑞芬太尼相比,通过TCI给药瑞芬太尼可减少丙泊酚用量,并降低呼吸暂停和呼吸抑制的发生率(TCI组n = 7,MCI组n = 16,P < 0.05)。