| JOURNAL HOME | CME HOME | THIS MONTH | PAST ISSUES | ETOC | COLLECTIONS |
| AUTHORS | REVIEWERS | EDITORIAL BOARD | FEEDBACK | RSS | HELP |
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital, Freiburg, Germany
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Torsten Loop, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital, Hugstetterstrasse 55, D-79106 Freiburg, Germany. Address e-mail to torsten{at}ana1.ukl.uni-freiburg.de
Abstract
Because no previous investigation has directly compared the combination of remifentanil (REM) and a hypnotic with that of REM and the newer volatile anesthetics, we studied recovery characteristics and patient satisfaction after the combination of REM with propofol (PRO), desflurane (DES), or sevoflurane (SEVO). One hundred twenty patients were randomly assigned to receive anesthesia with either REM/PRO, REM/DES, REM/SEVO, or thiopental/alfentanil/isoflurane/N2O (control group) for ear, nose, and throat surgery (n = 30 each). In the REM groups, the dosage of PRO (75 µg · kg-1 · min-1), and of DES or SEVO (0.5 minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration) was kept unchanged, and REM was titrated to hemodynamic response. The control group was managed according to standard practice. Early recovery (times to eye opening, extubation, and statement of name and date of birth) was predictably faster and more complete in the REM groups compared with the control group. However, late recovery (times to discharge from postanesthesia care unit and hospital) and overall patient satisfaction were not different among groups. No clinically relevant differences existed among the three REM groups. In conclusion, the combination of REM infusion with small-dose DES, SEVO, or PRO is characterized by predictably rapid, early recovery. However, late recovery and patient satisfaction are comparable to a conventional anesthetic technique.
Implications: Remifentanil anesthesia, combined with small-dose propofol, desflurane, or sevoflurane, enables predictably fast and smooth early recovery after ear, nose, and throat surgery. Despite such faster, early recovery and less need for postoperative analgesic and antiemetic medication, late recovery was comparable among the remifentanil combination groups and the control group.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. Hackner, O. Detsch, G. Schneider, S. Jelen-Esselborn, and E. Kochs Early recovery after remifentanil-pronounced compared with propofol-pronounced total intravenous anaesthesia for short painful procedures{dagger} Br. J. Anaesth., October 1, 2003; 91(4): 580 - 582. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Tempia, M. C. Olivei, E. Calza, H. Lambert, L. Scotti, E. Orlando, S. Livigni, and E. Guglielmotti The Anesthetic Conserving Device Compared with Conventional Circle System Used Under Different Flow Conditions for Inhaled Anesthesia Anesth. Analg., April 1, 2003; 96(4): 1056 - 1061. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Gemma, C. Tommasino, S. Cozzi, S. Narcisi, P. Mortini, M. Losa, and A. Soldarini Remifentanil Provides Hemodynamic Stability and Faster Awakening Time in Transsphenoidal Surgery Anesth. Analg., January 1, 2002; 94(1): 163 - 168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. A. O'Hare, R. K. Mirakhur, J. E. Reid, D. S. Breslin, and A. Hayes Recovery from propofol anaesthesia supplemented with remifentanil Br. J. Anaesth., March 1, 2001; 86(3): 361 - 365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
