The effects of alfentanil or remifentanil pretreatment on propofol injection pain

Efficacy and safety of alfentanil plus propofol versus propofol only in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of alfentanil plus propofol versus propofol only for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, China Biology Medicine, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials on alfentanil combined with propofol versus propofol only for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy from the inception of the database to August 2022. The Rev Man 5.4 software was used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized controlled trials involving 1762 patients were identified as eligible for this study. The meta-analysis showed that compared with propofol, alfentanil combined with propofol had a more stable mean arterial pressure [mean difference (MD) = 5.38, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.97-8.80; P = .002], heart rate (MD = 3.78, 95% CI: 1.30-6.26; P = .003) and pulse oxygen saturation (MD = 1.90, 95% CI: 0.93-2.78; P = .0001); a lower propofol dose (standard mean difference = -2.82, 95% CI: -3.70 to -1.94; P < .00001), lower awakening time (MD = -3.23, 95% CI: -4.01 to -2.45; P < .00001) and lower directional force recovery time (MD = -3.62, 95% CI: -4.22 to -3.03; P < .00001); a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting (relative risk [RR] = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.14-0.71; P = .005), body movement (RR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.13-0.54; P = .0002), hypotension (RR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.12-0.46; P < .0001), respiratory depression (RR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.15-0.89; P = .03) and cough reflex (RR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.12-0.89; P = .03).

CONCLUSION

This meta-study found that current evidence indicates that alfentanil plus propofol is better than propofol alone for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy and is associated with a lower incidence of adverse reactions. Due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to validate these above conclusions.

The effects of the administration sequence and the type of hypnotics on the development of remifentanil-induced chest wall rigidity: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Research on remifentanil-induced chest wall rigidity is limited. Furthermore, its incidence is unknown, and the clinical factors influencing its development remain unclear. This prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial aimed to investigate the effects of the administration sequence of hypnotics and remifentanil as well as the type of hypnotic administered on the development of remifentanil-induced chest wall rigidity.

METHODS

A total of 125 older patients aged [Formula: see text] 65 years, who were scheduled to undergo elective surgery under general anesthesia, were enrolled in this study. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups; Thio-Remi, Pro-Remi, Remi-Thio, or Remi-Pro. After confirming the loss of consciousness and achieving a target effect-site concentration of 3 ng/mL remifentanil, the development of remifentanil-induced chest wall rigidity was evaluated.

RESULTS

The incidence of chest wall rigidity was significantly higher in the remifentanil-hypnotic group than in the hypnotic-remifentanil (opposite sequence) group (55.0% vs. 21.7%, P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis revealed that remifentanil-hypnotic administration was a significant predictor of the development of chest wall rigidity (crude odds ratio 4.42, 95% confidence interval 1.99; 9.81, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Pretreatment with hypnotics potentially reduces the development of chest wall rigidity during the induction of balanced anesthesia with remifentanil in older patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This article was registered at WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (Trial number: KCT0006542).

The impact of alfentanil supplementation on the sedation of bronchoscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of alfentanil supplementation for the sedation of bronchoscopy remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of alfentanil supplementation on the sedation during bronchoscopy.

METHODS

We search PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through December 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of alfentanil supplementation versus placebo for the sedation during bronchoscopy. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

Five RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control group for bronchoscopy, alfentanyl supplementation is associated with significantly reduced coughing scores (Std. MD = -0.55; 95% CI = -0.96 to -0.14; P = 0.009) and dose of propofol (Std. MD = -0.34; 95% CI = -0.64 to -0.04; P = 0.03), but reveals the increase in hypoxemia (RR = 1.56; 95% CI = 1.17 to 2.08; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Alfentanyl supplementation benefits to reduce coughing scores and dose of propofol for bronchoscopy, but increases the incidence of hypoxemia. The use of alfentanyl supplementation for bronchoscopy should be with caution.

Randomized Trial to Compare Plasma Glucose Trends in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Supratentorial Gliomas under Maintenance of Sevoflurane, Desflurane, and Propofol

Background

Anesthetic agents influence the glycemic response by affecting the neuroendocrine surgical response or directly modifying pancreatic insulin release. Due to chances of neuronal damage, intraoperative hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia both are detrimental for patients undergoing neurosurgeries. Inhalational (sevoflurane and desflurane) and intravenous (propofol) agents have been found to raise intraoperative glucose levels in nonneurological surgeries.

Aim

We aimed to compare the intraoperative glucose levels in supratentorial glioma surgeries under the maintenance of three anesthetic agents such as sevoflurane, desflurane, and propofol.

Materials and Methods

This randomized trial was conducted with 90 nondiabetic adults with supratentorial glioma. Thirty patients were allocated randomly to the three groups receiving sevoflurane, desflurane, and propofol. Baseline and hourly plasma glucose levels were recorded. Postoperatively, the time required to achieve an Aldrete score of 9 and complications were assessed.

Results

Baseline plasma glucose levels were 111.23 ± 11.67, 109.47 ± 19.75, and 111.7 ± 13.88 mg/dL (P = 0.84) in sevoflurance, desflurane, and propofol group, respectively. All of them showed an elevation of plasma glucose in relation to the time of surgery with variable trends. In the 4^th and 5^th h, the elevations in the inhalational groups (sevoflurane and desflurane) were significantly higher than the propofol group (P = 0.003 and 0.002, respectively). The time for achieving Aldrete's score of 9 was higher in the propofol group (P < 0.0001). No differences were observed in the duration of hospital stay or complications.

Conclusions

Maintenance of anesthesia in nondiabetic patients showed clinically modest rise of plasma glucose which is higher in patients under sevoflurane and desflurane than under propofol. However, the immediate recovery was faster with inhalational agents compared to propofol-based anesthesia.

Effect-site concentration of remifentanil for preventing propofol injection pain during induction of balanced anesthesia

Background

Despite various strategies designed for preventing pain from propofol injection, it is still common and distressing to the patients. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the adequate effect-site concentration (Ce) of remifentanil to prevent pain due to propofol injection.

Methods

A total of 160 adults scheduled for elective surgery were randomly assigned to one of four groups receiving normal saline (group S) or remifentanil at a Ce of 2 (group R2), 3 (group R3), or 4 ng/ml (group R4), administered via target-controlled infusion, followed by the injection of 2 mg/kg of propofol (delivered with 1% lipid propofol). The severity and incidence of injection pain were assessed on a four-point scale.

Results

The incidence of propofol injection pain was significantly lower in group R2, R3, or R4 than in group S (30%, 5%, or 2.5% vs. 70%, respectively). Moreover, the intensity of the pain was lesser in group R2, R3, or R4 than in group S. However, the incidence or severity of injection was not different between groups R3 and R4.

Conclusions

During the induction of balanced anesthesia using propofol injection, pretreatment with remifentanil at a target Ce of 3 ng/ml effectively reduced propofol injection pain in adults.

Comparative evaluation of the effect of remifentanil and 2 different doses of esmolol on pain during propofol injection: A double-blind, randomized clinical consort study

BACKGROUND

Propofol is associated with pain during injection, which is stressful to patients. The present study was designed to investigate the analgesic effect of pretreatment with remifentanil and esmolol in minimizing propofol injection pain, compared with placebo.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind, prospective trial, 120 patients, scheduled for elective dental surgery under general anesthesia, were randomized to 1 of the 4 treatment arms (n = 30 each) receiving normal saline, remifentanil 0.35 μg/kg, esmolol 0.5 mg/kg, and 1 mg/kg before administration of propofol. During injection of 1% propofol 0.5 mg/kg, pain was evaluated by a 4-point score (0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe). Any adverse effects such as hypotension and bradycardia were recorded during the perioperative periods.

RESULTS

In all, 120 patients completed this study. There were no significant differences in terms of demographic data. The incidence of pain on injection of propofol was 11 (36.7%) with remifentanil 0.35 μg/kg, 12 (40%) with esmolol 0.5 mg/kg, and 11 (36.7%) with esmolol 1 mg/kg, compared with 25 (83.3%) with normal saline (respectively, P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the incidence of pain between groups with remifentanil 0.35 μg/kg, and esmolol 0.5 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg. There were no emergence reactions such as hypotension and bradycardia in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretreatment with esmolol 0.5 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg and remifentanil 0.35 μg/kg equally decreased pain during propofol injection.

Efficacy of lidocaine on preventing incidence and severity of pain associated with propofol using in pediatric patients: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Propofol injection pain was considered as one conundrum during clinical anesthesia. The systematic review about the effect of lidocaine in reducing injection pain among children has not been established. The aim of the study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of such intervention.

METHODS

The literature search was performed from the inception to the May 31, 2016 in PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, and Cochrane database. All randomized controlled trials that using lidocaine for propofol injection pain in children were enrolled. The primary outcome included the incidence of injection pain and the incidence of propofol injection pain in different degrees. The data were combined to calculate the relative ratio and relevant 95% confidence interval. A meta-analysis was performed following the guidelines of the Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook and the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

Data from the included 11 studies indicated that the incidence of injection pain was lower in lidocaine group than the incidence in saline control group and in propofol lipuro (medium- and long-chain triglycerides) group (pain occurrence: 22.1% in lidocaine vs 66.8% in saline, RR with 95% 0.34 [0.26, 0.43], I = 38%; 30.5% in lidocaine vs 46.9% in propofol lipuro, RR with 95% 0.68 [0.46, 1.00], I = 9%). There was no difference between lidocaine and ketamine/alfentanil both in reducing pain occurrence and in reducing pain severity (pain occurrence: 29.7% in lidocaine vs 25.8% in ketamine, RR with 95% 1.47 [0.16, 13.43], I = 94%; 31.0% in lidocaine vs 30.7% in alfentanil, RR with 95% 1.01 [0.69, 1.46], I = 11%). And the reported side effects revealed that the safety of lidocaine in pediatric patients was acceptable.

CONCLUSION

Compared with ketamine and alfentanil, lidocaine would be served as one more effective treatment in consideration of its well-matched efficacy, acceptable accessibility, and reasonable safety. However, more high-quality evidences in pediatric patients are necessary.

Pain on propofol injection: Causes and remedies

Pain on propofol injection (POPI) is a minor problem that all anesthetists face every day. Introduction of several new formulations and hundreds of clinical trials have failed to find its remedy with just one intervention in all patients. This article highlights the causes of POPI and interventions that are used to eliminate this pain in current practice. Relevant articles from Medline and Embase databases were searched and included in this descriptive review with the following conclusions: (1) POPI is due to irritation of venous adventitia leading to release of mediators such as kininogen from kinin cascade. (2) When two or more drugs or measures are used, the incidence of POPI decreases considerably. Hence, the approach to eliminating POPI should be multimodal. (3) Any regimen that includes a drug having local anesthetic effect combined with central sedative/analgesic and rapid injection into a large vein should definitely reduce the risk of POPI to negligible levels.

The safety and efficacy of alfentanil-based induction in bronchoscopy sedation: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Alfentanil in combination with propofol produces a synergistic sedative effect in patients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy (FB). However, the use of this combination is controversial due to the risk of cardiopulmonary depression. The aim of this study was to evaluate the proper induction regimen of alfentanil in propofol target-controlled infusion for FB sedation.

METHODS

One hundred seventy-three patients were assigned randomly into 5 regimens: Group 1 and 2, alfentanil 2.5 and 5 μg/kg, respectively, immediately before propofol administration; Group 3 and 4, alfentanil 2.5 and 5 μg/kg, respectively, 2 minutes before propofol administration; and Group 5, propofol administration alone to achieve the observer assessment of alertness and sedation scale 3∼2. The bronchoscopists, physicians in charge of sedation, and patients were blind to the regimens. Adverse events, drug dose, induction, procedure and recovery time, cough severity, and propofol injection related pain were recorded.

RESULTS

The patients in groups 2 and 4 required a lower dose of propofol (P = 0.031 and 0.019, respectively) and shorter time (P = 0.035 and 0.010) than group 5 for induction. Patients in group 2 experienced more hypoxemia than those in group 5 during induction (P = 0.031). The physician in charge of sedation scored a lower severity of cough in the patients in group 4 than in groups 3 and 5. There were no differences in terms of propofol injection related pain among the groups.

CONCLUSION

Alfentanil 5 μg/kg given immediately before propofol infusion cannot be recommended. Further study is required to define conclusions about alfentanil 2.5 and 5 μg/kg because of the low power rating of subgroup in the present study.

Effects of a fentanyl-propofol mixture on propofol injection pain: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol injection pain is a common problem that can be very distressing for patients. We compared the effects of injection with saline followed by injection with a fentanyl-propofol mixture, injection with fentanyl followed by a propofol injection, and injection with saline followed by propofol alone on propofol injection pain.

METHODS

The patients were assigned randomly to one of three groups. A rubber tourniquet was placed on the forearm to produce venous occlusion for 1 min. Before anesthesia induction, group C (control, n = 50) and group M (fentanylpropofol mixture, n = 50) received 5 ml of isotonic saline, while group F (fentanyl, n = 50) received 2 µg/kg of fentanyl. After the tourniquet was released, groups C and F received 5 ml of propofol and group M received 5 ml of a mixture containing 20 ml of propofol and 4 ml of fentanyl. At 10 s after the study drugs were given, a standard question about the comfort of the injection was asked of the patient. We used a verbal rating scale to evaluate propofol injection pain. Statistical analyses were performed with Student's t-tests and Fisher's exact tests; P < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.

RESULTS

The demographic data were similar among the groups. In group M, the number of patients reporting propofol injection pain was significantly lower than in groups F and C (both P < 0.001). No patient in group F or M experienced severe pain, whereas 24 patients (48%) had severe pain in group C (both P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that a fentanyl-propofol mixture was more effective than fentanyl pretreatment or a placebo in preventing propofol injection pain.

Comparison of Propofol, Propofol-Remifentanil, and Propofol-Fentanyl Administrations with Each Other Used for the Sedation of Patients to Undergo ERCP

INTRODUCTION

Using single anesthetic agent in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) may lead to inadequate analgesia and sedation. To achieve the adequate analgesia and sedation the single anesthetic agent doses must be increased which causes undesirable side effects. For avoiding high doses of single anesthetic agent nowadays combination with sedative agents is mostly a choice for analgesia and sedation for ERCP.

AIM

The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of propofol alone, propofol + remifentanil, and propofol + fentanyl combinations on the total dose of propofol to be administered during ERCP and on the pain scores after the process.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

This randomized study was performed with 90 patients (ASA I-II-III) ranging between 18 and 70 years of age who underwent sedation/analgesia for elective ERCP. The patients were administered only propofol (1.5 mg/kg) in Group Ι, remifentanil (0.05 μg/kg) + propofol (1.5 mg/kg) combination in Group II, and fentanyl (1 μg/kg) + propofol (1.5 mg/kg) combination in Group III. All the patients' sedation levels were assessed with the Ramsey Sedation Scale (RSS). Their recovery was assessed with the Aldrete and Numerical Rating Scale Score (NRS) at 10 min intervals.

RESULTS

The total doses of propofol administered to the patients in the three groups in this study were as follows: 375 mg in Group I, 150 mg in Group II, and 245 mg in Group III.

CONCLUSION

It was observed that, in the patients undergoing ERCP, administration of propofol in combination with an opioid provided effective and reliable sedation, reduced the total dose of propofol, increased the practitioner satisfaction, decreased the pain level, and provided hemodynamic stability compared to the administration of propofol alone.

Comparing the pain of propofol via different combinations of fentanyl, sufentanil or remifentanil in gastrointestinal endoscopy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the pain on injection of propofol via different combinations of fentanyl, sufentanil or remifentanil in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

Total 439 patients were randomly allocated into 6 groups. Propofol & fentanil (PF) group received 1 μg/kg fentanyl, propofol & sufentanil (PS) group received 0.1 μg/kg sufentanil and propofol & remifentanyl (PR) group received 1 μg/kg remifentanyl prior to administration of 1-2 mg/kg of propofol. The propofol & half-fentanil (Pf) group, propofol & half-sufentanil (Ps) group and propofol & half-remifentanyl (Pr) group were given 0.5 μg/kg fentanyl, 0.05 μg/kg sufentanil and 0.5 μg/kg remifentanyl, respectively and later administrated 1-2 mg/kg propofol. All patients were monitored for the blood pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and oxygen saturation (SpO2). Additionally, the pain intensity was assessed using a 4-point verbal rating scale (VRS) by professional doctors.

RESULTS

The incidence of pain due to propofol injection in Ps group (33.8%) was significantly lower than other 5 groups. The heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were maintained within the normal limits in all six groups and there was no hypotension or bradycardia encountered during the study period.

CONCLUSION

Propofol and sufentanil group was the most suitable program for painless gastroscopy.

Prevention of injection pain due to propofol by dezocine: a comparison with lidocaine

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of dezocine (DEZ) versus placebo control (CON) and 2% lidocaine (LID) in prevention of injection pain due to DEZ.

Materials and Methods:

A prospective randomized double-blind, placebo-CON study was conducted in 75 adults, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II, scheduled to undergo an elective surgery. A total of 25 patients were randomly assigned to one of the three groups, thus CON, group LID and group DEZ. The groups received either 2 ml of normal saline or 2 ml 2% LID or 2 mg/2 ml DEZ, respectively, as pre-treatment. Propofol was injected 1 min later. A blinded researcher assessed the patient's pain level using a four point verbal rating scale.

Results:

Less patients experienced pain due to propofol injection in the LID (40%) and DEZ (28%) groups compared with the CON (84%) group (P < 0.05). Six patients (24%) in the CON group reported severe pain during propofol injection but none in the other two groups.

Conclusion:

Pre-treatment with DEZ decreases propofol injection pain as effectively as LID.

Cisatracurium pretreatment with tourniquet reduces propofol injection pain: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy of pretreatment with cisatracurium for prevention of pain associated with propofol injection, and compare its efficacy with that of lidocaine.

METHODS

Patients undergoing general anaesthesia were randomized to receive normal saline (control group), lidocaine (0.5 mg/kg), 0.03 mg/kg cisatracurium or 0.15 mg/kg cisatracurium. All drugs were administered into the largest dorsal vein of the hand with venous occlusion for 30 s, followed by propofol (0.5 mg/kg). Pain was evaluated using a four-point scale.

RESULTS

The incidence and severity of pain was significantly lower in the lidocaine and 0.15 mg/kg cisatracurium groups than the control and 0.03 mg/kg cisatracurium groups (n = 50/group). There was no significant difference between the lidocaine and 0.15 mg/kg cisatracurium groups in the incidence and severity of pain.

CONCLUSIONS

0.15 mg/kg cisatracurium effectively decreases the incidence and severity of pain induced by propofol injection without any significant complications.

The effect of gender on EC(50) of remifentanil to prevent pain during injection of microemulsion propofol

Background

Propofol injection pain is an unpleasant experience to patients and its prevalence can be influenced by age and gender. We determined the half maximal effective concentration (EC₅₀) of remifentanil for preventing the microemulsion propofol injection pain in the male and female adult groups.

Methods

After institutional review board approval, a total of 60 patients were assigned into 2 groups depending on their gender: group M (male, 20-65 yr) and group F (female, 20-65 yr). Anesthesia was induced with propofol and remifentanil, by a target-controlled infusion. Target effect-site concentration (Ce) of propofol and remifentanil for the first patient started at 4.0 ug/ml and 4.0 ng/ml. Ce of remifentanil for each subsequent patient was determined by the response of the previous patient by the Dixon's up-and-down method (DUDM) with an interval of 0.2 ng/ml. After equilibration of plasma and effect site remifentanil concentration, propofol was administered, and the pain responses were observed.

Results

The remifentanil EC₅₀ was 3.8 ± 0.2 and 2.7 ± 0.2 ng/ml in groups M and F, respectively, by DUDM. From Probit regression model, the remifentanil EC₅₀ was 3.7 (3.0-4.3) and 2.7 (1.8-2.9) ng/ml in groups M and F, respectively.

Conclusions

The remifentanil EC₅₀ for preventing the moderate to severe injection pain of propofol was higher in males than in females.

The optimal effect-site concentration of remifentanil to attenuate the pain caused by propofol

Background

The injection pain of propofol is a frequent and well-known adverse effect. This study was designed to determine the optimal effect-site concentration of remifentanil for minimizing injection pain during induction with propofol.

Methods

A total intravenous anesthetic technique was used for patients undergoing general anesthesia and remifentanil was pretreated to reach a certain target concentration before propofol injection. Using Dixon's up-and-down method, the degree of pain described by the patient was used to adjust the target concentration of remifentanil for the next patient. Ten success-failure curves (crossovers) were sought to find the effect-site concentration (EC) of remifentanil for minimizing injection pain of propofol.

Results

The EC of remifentanil in 50% and 95% of adult female population (EC₅₀ and EC₉₅) for minimizing injection pain of propofol were 3.09 ng/ml (95% confidence limits [CI] 2.92-3.30 ng/ml) and 3.78 ng/ml (95% CI 3.45-3.95 ng/ml), respectively. Clinically significant hemodynamic compromise or respiratory complications were not found during remifentanil infusion.

Conclusions

Maintaining 3.78 ng/ml EC of remifentanil during induction with propofol attenuate propofol injection pain without serious adverse events in female patients undergoing general anesthesia and this method may provide the patient's comfort without preparing other drugs for pain relief.

The effect of priming injection of different doses of remifentanil on injection pain of microemulsion propofol premixed with lidocaine

Background

The injection pain of microemulsion propofol is frequent and difficult to prevent. This study examined the prevention of pain during microemulsion propofol injection by pretreatment with different doses of remifentanil or saline, and premixing of lidocaine.

Methods

One hundred sixty ASA physical status 1-2 adult patients scheduled for elective surgery were enrolled into one of four groups (n = 40, in each). The patients received saline (group LS), remifentanil 0.3 µg/kg (group LR 0.3), remifentanil 0.5 µg/kg (group LR 0.5), or remifentanil 1.0 µg/kg (group LR 1.0), and after 90 seconds received an injection of 2 mg/kg microemulsion propofol premixed with lidocaine 40 mg. Pain was assessed on a four-point scale during microemulsion propofol injection.

Results

The incidence of microemulsion propofol-induced pain was significantly lower in the LR 0.3, LR 0.5 and LR 1.0 groups than in the LS group (37.5%, 12.5% and 10% vs 65%, respectively). The LR 0.5 and LR 1.0 groups showed significantly less frequent and intense pain than the LR 0.3 group. However, both incidence and severity of pain were not different between LR 0.5 and LR 1.0 groups.

Conclusions

The combination of remifentanil and lidocaine is effective in alleviating pain associated with a microemulsion propofol injection compared with just lidocaine. Remifentanil 0.5 µg/kg had a similar analgesic effect compared to the 1.0 µg/kg dose.

Efficacy of the combination of cold propofol and pretreatment with remifentail on propofol injection pain

Background

Pain upon the injection of propofol is a common adverse effect. This study was conducted to evaluate the analgesic effect of remifentanil and cold propofol during propofol injection for the induction of anesthesia and to determine if a combination of cold propofol and remifentanil produced additional analgesic efficacy.

Methods

A total of 160 patients aged 20-65 years old were randomly allocated into one of four groups (n = 40, in each). Control and remifentanil group patients received 2 mg/kg propofol that had been stored at room temperature (20-23℃), while the cold and combination group received cold (4℃) propofol. The patients received remifentanil 0.5 µg/kg IV in the remifentanil and combination groups or saline in the control and cold groups. Ninety seconds after administration the patients were administered propofol over a 30 second period. The pain intensity and incidence were then evaluated using a 4-point verbal rating scale.

Results

The incidence of pain was significantly reduced in groups that received remifentanil in the cold and combination groups when compared with the control group (27.5%, 30%, and 2.5% vs. 70%, respectively). Moreover, the severity of pain was significantly lower in groups that received remifentanil in the cold and combination groups when compared with the control group. The incidence and severity of pain from the propofol injection in the combination group was significantly lower than that in the remifentanil and cold groups.

Conclusions

The combination of cold propofol and pretreatment with remifentanil more effectively reduced the incidence of pain upon the injection of propofol than either treatment alone.

Pain reduction on injection of microemulsion propofol via combination of remifentanil and lidocaine

BACKGROUND

Microemulsion propofol produces more frequent and severe pain upon injection than lipid emulsion propofol. This study examined the analgesic effect of lidocaine-premixed microemulsion propofol in patients pretreated with remifentanil. The induction of anesthesia with this combination was compared with microemulsion propofol accompanied with either remifentanil or lidocaine.

METHODS

One hundred twenty patients aged between 20-65 years old were allocated randomly into one of three groups (n = 40, in each). The patients in the remifentanil group received remifentanil 0.5 microg/kg IV for 30 seconds before a microemulsion propofol injection. The patients in the lidocaine group received propofol 2 mg/kg premixed with 40 mg lidocaine over a 60 second period. The patients in the combination group received both remifentanil and lidocaine.

RESULTS

There was a significantly lower incidence of microemulsion propofol injection pain (severity 2 or more) in the combination group (12.5%) than in the remifentanil and lidocaine groups (90% and 65%, respectively, P < 0.05). The incidence of moderate pain disappeared completely in the combination group (0%) compared to that in the remifentanil and lidocaine group (32.5% and 20%, respectively, P < 0.05). Severe pain did not appear in any of the three groups. There were no complications on the injection site in the lidocaine alone and combination groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of microemulsion propofol premixed with lidocaine after a pretreatment with remifentanil was more effective in reducing the incidence of pain upon the injection of microemulsion propofol than either treatment alone.

The effect of pretreatment with two different concentrations of remifentanil on propofol injection pain

BACKGROUND

Propofol produces anesthesia with rapid recovery but also causes pain on injection. This study was designed to evaluate the effects of two different concentrations of remifentanil for minimizing the pain caused by propofol and to compare the hemodynamic changes during propofol-remifentanil infusion.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind study of 80 patients, we compared the severity of the injection pain of propofol between two groups of patients. The initial effect-site target concentration of remifentanil was set at 4 ng/ml (the R4 group, n = 40) or 8 ng/ml (the R8 group, n = 40). After the effect-site concentration of remifentanil was achieved, the infusion of propofol was started with the concentration of 4 microgram/ml. The remifentanil-related complications were evaluated and the severity of the pain caused by propofol was compared by using a four-point scale during the propofol infusion. The heart rate and arterial blood pressure were measured at pre-induction, just before intubation and at 1 minute after intubation.

RESULTS

The severity of injection pain of propofol was significantly lower in the R8 group than in the R4. There was no significant difference in the incidence of remifentanil-related complications between the two groups. Compared with the pre-induction values, the heart rate and arterial blood pressure were significantly lower at pre-intubation and at 1 minute after intubation in the R4 and R8 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretreatment with an effect-site concentration of 8 ng/ml remifentanil may be useful for minimizing the propofol injection pain compared with 4 ng/ml remifentanil.

Remifentanil prevents withdrawal movements caused by intravenous injection of rocuronium

PURPOSE

The incidence of pain induced withdrawal movement following intravenous injection of rocuronium is high. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was designed to evaluate the effect of pretreatment of remifentanil on the withdrawal movements due to intravenous injection of rocuronium during anesthetic induction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety adult female patients undergoing thyroidectomy were randomly allocated to three groups. Each patient intravenously received one of three solutions of equal volume (4 mL): normal saline (Group I, n=30), 0.5 microg/kg remifentanil (Group II, n=30) or 1 microg/kg remifentanil (Group III, n=30). Thirty seconds after remifentanil administration, anesthesia was induced with 5 mg/kg IV thiopental. Twenty seconds after thiopental injection, 0.6 mg/kg IV rocuronium was administered (injection rate of 0.5 mL/sec) and patients' withdrawal movements were assessed. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate were assessed on arrival in the operation room, before the tracheal intubation and immediately, 1 and 2 min after the tracheal intubation.

RESULTS

The incidence of withdrawal movements was significantly lower in both of the remifentanil groups (3 and 0% in Group II and III, respectively) than in the saline group (70%). Remifentanil attenuated the increase of heart rate and MAP immediately and 1 min after the tracheal intubation.

CONCLUSION

The pretreatment with 0.5 and 1.0 microg/kg remifentanil of bolus doses prevented the withdrawal movements caused by rocuronium injection, and effectively blunted cardiovascular activation following tracheal intubation.

A combination of lidocaine (lignocaine) and remifentanil reduces pain during propofol injection

OBJECTIVE

Pain on injection is a well known adverse effect of propofol. The purpose of this study was to compare the analgesic effect of a lidocaine (lignocaine)/remifentanil combination compared with either lidocaine alone or remifentanil alone during propofol injection for induction of anaesthesia.

METHODS

In a randomised, double-blind, prospective trial, 129 patients were allocated to one of three groups (each n = 43) receiving lidocaine 20mg, remifentanil 0.3 microg/kg or lidocaine 20 mg plus remifentanil 0.3 microg/kg as pretreatment, followed by injection of 5 mL of 1% propofol. Pain severity was evaluated on a four-point scale.

RESULTS

Two patients (4.7%) complained of pain in the lidocaine plus remifentanil group compared with 15 (35.7%) in the lidocaine alone group and 18 (42.9%) in the remifentanil alone group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of injection pain between the lidocaine alone and remifentanil alone groups (p = 0.21).

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment with a combination of lidocaine and remifentanil is more effective than either pretreatment alone in reducing pain on injection of propofol.

Multimodal Analgesia to Prevent Propofol-Induced Pain: Pretreatment with Remifentanil and Lidocaine Versus Remifentanil or Lidocaine Alone

BACKGROUND

Propofol is well-known for its pain on injection. Premixture with lidocaine or pretreatment with remifentanil reduces injection pain. A multimodal approach might offer additional mitigation of propofol injection pain.

METHODS

In a randomized, prospective, double-blind study of 156 patients, we compared the incidence and severity of propofol pain among three groups. Patients in the lidocaine group (n = 54) received 2% lidocaine premixed with propofol (40 mg lidocaine in 180 mg propofol). Patients in the remifentanil group (n = 50), received pretreatment with remifentanil 2 microg x kg(-1) IV over 30 s. Patients in the combination group (n = 52) received both lidocaine and remifentanil.

RESULTS

A significant decrease in the overall incidence of propofol pain at induction was achieved in the combination group (9.6%) compared with that in the remifentanil group (36%) and the lidocaine group (35%) (P = 0.003). The incidence of severe and moderate pain was also significantly different in the combination group (0%), compared with that in the remifentanil (18%) and lidocaine groups (12.9%) (P < 0.02). Similar, statistically significant differences among the three groups were achieved concerning recalled pain in the postanesthesia care unit.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of two different analgesic modalities, remifentanil and lidocaine completely abolishes moderate and severe pain associated with propofol injection, and significantly reduces the incidence of mild pain when compared with each drug used alone.

Reduction of pain on injection of propofol: combination of pretreatment of remifentanil and premixture of lidocaine with propofol

BACKGROUNDS AND OBJECTIVE

There is a high incidence of pain following intravenous injection of propofol, and many studies have been conducted to find a way of reducing this. The administration of lidocaine and, recently, remifentanil has also been used for this purpose, but it is only partially effective. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the analgesic effect of a combination of pretreatment with remifentanil and premixture of lidocaine with propofol and to compare either treatment alone during propofol injection in dorsal hand-veins.

METHODS

In a prospective, randomized, double-blinded trial, we studied 141 adult patients scheduled for elective surgery. The combination of pretreatment of remifentanil (0.35 microg kg(-1) min(-1)) and a premixture of lidocaine with propofol (mixture of propofol 1% and lidocaine 1% in a 10:1 ratio) was compared with either treatment alone in the prevention of pain on propofol injection. Pain was assessed on a four-point scale (0=none, 1=mild, 2=moderate, 3=severe) during propofol injection. Patients in Group B received remifentanil (0.35 microg kg(-1) min(-1)) 30 s before the injection of propofol.

RESULTS

The reduction of pain on propofol injection was similar in both the remifentanil pretreatment and lidocaine premixture groups (62.2% vs. 62.2%). Combination therapy was associated with a higher incidence of patients without pain (91.3%) than either treatment alone (P<0.001). On analysing the injection pain scores, we found a significant reduction of the score in the remifentanil and lidocaine Group C compared with the lidocaine Group A (P<0.001) and the remifentanil Group B (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of pretreatment of remifentanil and premixture of lidocaine with propofol was more effective in reducing the incidence of pain on injection of propofol than either treatment alone.