Pharmacokinetics of remifentanil and its major metabolite, remifentanil acid, in ICU patients with renal impairment †

In Vitro Hepatotoxicity of Routinely Used Opioids and Sedative Drugs

A hepatocyte cell line was used to determine the hepatotoxicity of sedatives and opioids, as the hepatotoxicity of these drugs has not yet been well characterized. This might pose a threat, especially to critically ill patients, as they often receive high cumulative doses for daily analgosedation and often already have impaired liver function due to an underlying disease or complications during treatment. A well-established biosensor based on HepG2/C3A cells was used for the determination of the hepatotoxicity of commonly used sedatives and opioids in the intensive care setting (midazolam, propofol, s-ketamin, thiopental, fentanyl, remifentanil, and sufentanil). The incubation time was 2 × 3 days with clinically relevant (Cmax) and higher concentrations (C5× and C10×) of each drug in cell culture medium or human plasma. Afterward, we measured the cell count, vitality, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), mitochondrial dehydrogenase activity, cytochrome P 450 1A2 (CYP1A2), and albumin synthesis. All tested substances reduced the viability of hepatocyte cells, but sufentanil and remifentanil showed more pronounced effects. The cell count was diminished by sufentanil in both the medium and plasma and by remifentanil only in plasma. Sufentanil and remifentanil also led to higher values of LDH in the cell culture supernatant. A reduction of mitochondrial dehydrogenase activity was seen with the use of midazolam and s-ketamine. Microalbumin synthesis was reduced in plasma after its incubation with higher concentrations of sufentanil and remifentanil. Remifentanil and s-ketamine reduced CYP1A2 activity, while propofol and thiopental increased it. Our findings suggest that none of the tested sedatives and opioids have pronounced hepatotoxicity. Sufentanil, remifentanil, and s-ketamine showed moderate hepatotoxic effects in vitro. These drugs should be given with caution to patients vulnerable to hepatotoxic drugs, e.g., patients with pre-existing liver disease or liver impairment as part of their underlying disease (e.g., hypoxic hepatitis or cholestatic liver dysfunction in sepsis). Further studies are indicated for this topic, which may use more complex cell culture models and global pharmacovigilance reports, addressing the limitation of the used cell model: HepG2/C3A cells have a lower metabolic capacity due to their low levels of CYP enzymes compared to primary hepatocytes. However, while the test model is suitable for parental substances, it is not for toxicity testing of metabolites.

Remi-fent 1-A pragmatic randomised controlled study to evaluate the feasibility of using remifentanil or fentanyl as sedation adjuncts in mechanically ventilated patients

Objective

To evaluate the feasibility of conducting a prospective randomised controlled trial (pRCT) comparing remifentanil and fentanyl as adjuncts to sedate mechanically ventilated patients.

Design

Single-center, open-labelled, pRCT with blinded analysis.

Setting

Australian tertiary intensive care unit (ICU).

Participants

Consecutive adults between June 2020 and August 2021 expected to receive invasive ventilation beyond the next day and requiring opioid infusion were included. Exclusion criteria were pregnant/lactating women, intubation >12 h, or study-drug hypersensitivity.

Interventions

Open-label fentanyl and remifentanil infusions per existing ICU protocols.

Outcomes

Primary outcomes were feasibility of recruiting ≥1 patient/week and >90 % compliance, namely no other opioid infusion used during the study period. Secondary outcomes included complications, ICU-, ventilator- and hospital-free days, and mortality (ICU, hospital). Blinded intention-to-treat analysis was performed concealing the allocation group.

Results

208 patients were enrolled (mean 3.7 patients/week). Compliance was 80.6 %. More patients developed complications with fentanyl than remifentanil: bradycardia (n = 44 versus n = 21; p < 0.001); hypotension (n = 78 versus n = 53; p < 0.01); delirium (n = 28 versus n = 15; p = 0.001). No differences were seen in ICU (24.3 % versus 27.6 %,p = 0.60) and hospital mortalities (26.2 % versus 30.5 %; p = 0.50). Ventilator-free days were higher with remifentanil (p = 0.01).

Conclusions

We demonstrated the feasibility of enrolling patients for a pRCT comparing remifentanil and fentanyl as sedation adjuncts in mechanically ventilated patients. We failed to attain the study-opioid compliance target, likely because of patients with complex sedative/analgesic requirements. Secondary outcomes suggest that remifentanil may reduce mechanical ventilation duration and decrease the incidence of complications. An adequately powered multicentric phase 2 study is required to evaluate these results.

Efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of MR13A11A, a generic of remifentanil, for pain management of Japanese patients in the intensive care unit: a double-blinded, fentanyl-controlled, randomized, non-inferiority phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

The aims of this study were to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of continuous intravenous administration of remifentanil in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, fentanyl-controlled, non-inferiority phase 3 study. Patients aged ≥ 20 years requiring 6 h to 10 days mechanical ventilation in an ICU and requiring pain relief were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either remifentanil (n = 98) or fentanyl (n = 98). Dose was titrated from an infusion rate of 1 mL/h (remifentanil: 0.025 µg/kg/min, fentanyl: 0.1 µg/kg/h) until the target level of analgesia (behavioral pain scale [BPS] ≤ 5 or numerical rating score [NRS] ≤ 3) was achieved by escalating the dose in 1 mL/h increasing. Administration was then adjusted to maintain the target level of analgesia until weaning from the ventilator. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who did not require rescue fentanyl. Safety was assessed according to standard procedures. PK of remifentanil in the arterial blood was assessed in 24 patients.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients achieving the primary endpoint in the remifentanil and fentanyl groups was 100% (92/92) and 97.8% (88/90), respectively. The difference between the groups was 2.2% (95% confidence interval, - 0.8-5.3) and non-inferiority of remifentanil to fentanyl was verified (p < 0.0001). The incidences of any adverse events in the remifentanil and fentanyl groups was 34 of 92 patients (37.0%) and 34 of 90 patients (37.8%), respectively. Adverse drug reactions was 12 in 92 patients (13.0%) and 15 in 90 patients (16.7%), respectively. In the PK analysis, blood remifentanil concentration decreased within 10 min to almost 50% of the end of administration, suggesting rapid offset of action following discontinuation of remifentanil.

CONCLUSIONS

Remifentanil can be used safely for pain management in mechanically ventilated Japanese patients in the ICU.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials, jRCT2080224954. Registered 20 November 2019, https://jrct.niph.go.jp/latest-detail/jRCT2080224954 .

The effect of remifentanil infusion on sevoflurane minimum alveolar concentration-no movement (MACNM) and bispectral index in dogs

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of remifentanil infusion on the minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane preventing movement (SEVOMAC_NM) and bispectral index (BIS) in dogs.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, unmasked study.

ANIMALS

A total of 10 adult Beagle dogs weighing 9.0 ± 1.1 kg.

METHODS

Dogs were anesthetized with sevoflurane and baseline SEVOMAC_NM was determined. Remifentanil was infused at 5, 10 and 20 μg kg^-1 hour^-1, in sequence, with 20 minutes washout between infusions. Variables monitored throughout anesthesia included heart rate (HR), oscillometric blood pressure, end-tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide, end-tidal sevoflurane concentration (Fe'Sevo) and BIS. SEVOMAC_NM after remifentanil infusion (SEVOMAC_NM-REMI) determination started 20 minutes after the start of each infusion. Venous blood samples were collected for plasma remifentanil concentration determination at baseline, SEVOMAC_NM-REMI determination time points, and 20 minutes after each infusion was stopped. A mixed model analysis was used to determine the effect of remifentanil infusion on response variables. The relationships between BIS and Fe'Sevo, plasma remifentanil concentrations and the percentage decrease in baseline SEVOMAC_NM were evaluated (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

The overall SEVOMAC_NM at baseline was 2.47 ± 0.11%. Addition of remifentanil at all infusion rates significantly decreased SEVOMAC_NM, but the medium and high doses resulted in significantly greater decreases in SEVOMAC_NM than the lower dose. There was no difference in SEVOMAC_NM percentage change between infusions 10 and 20 μg kg^-1 hour^-1. Plasma remifentanil concentrations were significantly different in all infusion rates. Baseline BIS value was 70 ± 1 and was lower than the BIS values recorded during all remifentanil infusions. BIS values were not significantly different among infusion rates. HR was lower and mean arterial pressure was higher during remifentanil infusions than at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

All remifentanil infusions decreased SEVOMAC_NM in dogs. Remifentanil infusion at any rate studied did not reduce BIS values.

The effect of concentration, reconstitution solution and pH on the stability of a remifentanil hydrochloride and propofol admixture for simultaneous co-infusion

Background

There are scenarios where pre-mixing and infusing analgesic and anaesthetic agents as a single intravenous (IV) solution is highly desirable; however, it is important to ensure the agents are compatible when mixed. As such, the long-term stability of a remifentanil-propofol mixture, and means of improving this, were assessed across a range of remifentanil concentrations, diluents, and time points.

Methods

Remifentanil was reconstituted with ultrapure water, 0.9% saline, 20% saline, or 8.4% sodium bicarbonate solution (the latter two chosen for their pH characteristics, rather than their use in pharmaceutical reconstitution) and then mixed with propofol (1%) or further diluted with water to derive concentrations of 10–50 μg mL^− 1. Remifentanil and propofol concentrations were determined initially and then periodically for up to 24 h using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Mass spectrometry (MS) was used to detect degradation products in solutions containing 30 μg mL^− 1 of remifentanil. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA and Student’s t-test, with a significance value of 0.05.

Results

Isolated remifentanil (pH < 4) and propofol (pH 7.35) did not degrade significantly when reconstituted with water or saline solution over 24 h, while remifentanil reconstituted with sodium bicarbonate degraded significantly (P < 0.001, pH 8.65). Mixing with propofol substantially increased the pH of the mixture and resulted in significant remifentanil degradation for all reconstitution solutions used, while propofol remained stable (pH 6.50). The amount of degradation product detected in samples containing isolated remifentanil and a mixture of the drugs was proportional to the remifentanil degradation observed.

Conclusions

Remifentanil stability is affected by both the reconstitution solution used and when mixed with propofol, with pH appearing to be a contributing factor to degradation. If the pH of the solution and concentration of remifentanil are correctly controlled, e.g. through the use of a more acidic diluent, an admixture of remifentanil and propofol may be useful clinically.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s12871-020-01194-5.

Analgesic and sedative agents used in the intensive care unit: A review

Pain is a common experience for most patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). In the current study, the advantages and disadvantages of analgesic and sedative drugs used in the ICU are reviewed. An ideal sedative and analgesic agent should have features such as rapid onset of action, rapid recovery after discontinuation, predictability, minimal accumulation of the agent and metabolites in the body, and lack of toxicity. None of the sedative and analgesic agents have all of these desired characteristics; nevertheless, clinicians must be familiar with these classes of drugs to optimize pharmacotherapy and ensure as few side-effects as possible for ICU patients.

Population pharmacokinetics of remifentanil in critically ill patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is associated with pharmacokinetic (PK) changes of drugs. It presents considerable challenges to providing optimal dosing regimens for patients receiving ECMO. We aimed to describe the population PK of remifentanil in critically ill adult patients receiving venoartrial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and to identify determinants associated with altered remifentanil concentrations. The population PK model of remifentanil was developed using nonlinear mixed effects modelling (NONMEM). Fifteen adult patients who received a continuous infusion of remifentanil during VA-ECMO participated in the study. The PK of remifentanil was best described by a one-compartment model with additive and proportional residual errors. Remifentanil concentrations were affected by sex and ECMO pump speed. The final PK model included the effect of sex and ECMO pump speed on clearance is developed as followed: clearance (L/h) = 366 × 0.502sex × (ECMO pump speed/2350)2.04 and volume (L) = 41. Remifentanil volume and clearance were increased in adult patients on VA-ECMO compared with previously reported patients not on ECMO. We suggest that clinicians should consider an increased remifentanil dosing to achieve the desired level of sedation and provide a dosing regimen according to sex and ECMO pump speed.

Prolonged infusion of sedatives and analgesics in adult intensive care patients: A systematic review of pharmacokinetic data reporting and quality of evidence

Although pharmacokinetic (PK) data for prolonged sedative and analgesic agents in intensive care unit (ICU) has been described, the number of publications in this important area appear relatively few, and PK data presented is not comprehensive. Known pathophysiological changes in critically ill patients result in altered drug PK when compared with non-critically ill patients. ClinPK Statement was recently developed to promote consistent reporting in PK studies, however, its applicability to ICU specific PK studies is unclear. In this systematic review, we assessed the overall ClinPK Statement compliance rate, determined the factors affecting compliance rate, graded the level of PK evidence and assessed the applicability of the ClinPK Statement to future ICU PK studies. Of the 33 included studies (n=2016), 22 (67%) were low evidence quality descriptive studies (Level 4). Included studies had a median compliance rate of 80% (IQR 66% to 86%) against the ClinPK Statement. Overall pooled compliance rate (78%, 95% CI 73% to 83%) was stable across time (P=0.38), with higher compliance rates found in studies fitting three compartments models (88%, P<0.01), two compartments models (83%, P<0.01) and one compartment models (77%, P=0.17) than studies fitting noncompartmental or unspecified models (69%) (P<0.01). Data unique to the interpretation of PK data in critically ill patients, such as illness severity (48%), organ dysfunction (36%) and renal replacement therapy use (32%), were infrequently reported. Discrepancy between the general compliance rate with ClinPK Statement and the under-reporting of ICU specific parameters suggests that the applicability of the ClinPK Statement to ICU PK studies may be limited in its current form.

Remifentanil, fentanyl, or the combination in surgical procedures in the United States: predictors of use in patients with organ impairment or obesity

Introduction

Remifentanil has a rapid onset and short duration of action, predictable pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile, and unlike fentanyl, does not accumulate with repeated or prolonged administration. This study evaluated predictors of remifentanil use in surgical patients with renal or hepatic impairment, or obesity in the United States who received remifentanil, fentanyl, or the combination.

Methods

Data (2010) from the US Healthcare National Inpatient Database, State Inpatient Database, State Ambulatory Surgery Database, and private hospital and Medicaid databases were used in this analysis. Patients included had presence of hepatic or renal disease, and/or obesity and were >5 and ≤80 years of age.

Results

In 2010, 9,274 patients with renal impairment, 1,896 with hepatic impairment, and 6,278 with obesity were identified. The percentage of surgical patients diagnosed with renal disease, hepatic disease, or obesity who received remifentanil was 41, 28, and 35 %, respectively; 29, 17, and 22 % received both remifentanil and fentanyl, and 30, 55, and 43 % received fentanyl alone, respectively. In patients with renal or hepatic disease the probability of remifentanil use was greater for persons aged >50 years, with Medicare as primary payer, or who were diagnosed with obesity (p < 0.05 all comparisons). In obese patients, the probability of remifentanil use was greater for persons aged >50 years or female (both p < 0.05). For all 3 disease states, the probability of remifentanil use was lower for those receiving epidural anesthesia or with Medicaid as primary payer (p < 0.05 all comparisons).

Conclusion

Remifentanil in combination with fentanyl is used less than fentanyl in surgical patients with hepatic impairment or obesity. This is inconsistent with the fact that the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic features of remifentanil suggest it is the preferred intraoperative opioid in these patients. Predictors of remifentanil use in patients with renal or hepatic impairment, or obesity include older age, obesity, and Medicare as primary payer. Remifentanil in combination with fentanyl was significantly less utilized than fentanyl in persons with Medicaid as primary payer even though there was a disproportionate enrollment of beneficiaries with renal or hepatic disease, or obesity in state Medicaid programs.

Remifentanil, ketamine, and fospropofol: a review of alterative continuous infusion agents for sedation in the critically ill

Sedation and analgesia are integral aspects in the care of critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit. In recent years, many of the commonly used sedative agents in the United States have experienced manufacturing and sterility issues leading to decreased availability. In addition, current practice has shifted to providing lighter levels of sedation as clinicians have gained a better understanding of the consequences of prolonged deep sedation. Benzodiazepines have fallen out of favor due to findings including increased delirium and duration of mechanical ventilation. Alterations in end-organ function in critically ill patients may also lead to varied responses to commonly used sedatives. With numerous factors impacting choice of sedation in the intensive care unit, fospropofol, ketamine, and remifentanil have been considered potential alternatives to standard therapy. The purpose of this review was to discuss strategies for the safe and effective use of fospropofol, ketamine, and remifentanil for continuous intravenous sedation in critically ill patients.

Effect of a target-controlled infusion of remifentanil in combination with desflurane during the "maintenance" phase of general anesthesia

Background

The goal of this study was to determine the optimal target-controlled concentration of remifentanil combined with desflurane, by using a more widely and decreasing end-tidal concentration of desflurane.

Methods

Ninety ASA I patients, who underwent general anesthesia for elective orthopedic or extremity surgeries, were registered and randomly allocated to receive either a target-controlled concentration of 1 ng/ml (group R1), 2 ng/ml (group R2) remifentanil, or desflurane only without remifentanil infusion (group D). Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded at 5-min intervals from after a 10-15 min period of surgical incision to before a 10-min period prior to the end of an operation. End-tidal concentration of desflurane was increased or decreased in proportion to the changes in MAP and HR. If the value of bispectral index (BIS) was from 60-62 for more than 2 min or systolic blood pressure would fall below 90 mmHg, the patient was excluded from the study to prevent a risk of "explicit awareness" and shock.

Results

The end-tidal desflurane concentration was lower in the group receiving 1 ng/ml (5.2 ± 0.5 vol%; P < 0.001) and 2 ng/ml remifenanil (4.4 ± 0.5 vol%; P < 0.001) compared to patients in group D (7.9 ± 0.5 vol%).

Conclusions

We recommend the use of 2 ng/ml or less remifentanil combined with desflurane for decreasing concentrations of desflurane without significant side effects, during the "maintenance" phase, and not during the induction phase of general anesthesia.

Analgosedation: A Paradigm Shift in Intensive Care Unit Sedation Practice

Objective:

To critically evaluate the use of analgosedation in the management of agitation in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients.

Data Sources:

Literature was accessed through MEDLINE (1948-November 2011) and Cochrane Library (2011, issue 1) using the terms analgosedation, analgosedation, or analgesia-based sedation alone or in combination with intensive care unit or critically ill. Reference lists of related publications were also reviewed.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

All articles published in English were evaluated. Randomized controlled trials examining critically ill mechanically ventilated patients older than 18 years were included.

Data Synthesis:

Limitations of current sedation practices include serious adverse drug events, prolonged mechanical ventilation time, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. Studies have demonstrated that analgosedation, a strategy that manages patient pain and discomfort first, before providing sedative therapy, results in improved patient outcomes compared to standard sedative-hypnotic regimens. Nine randomized controlled trials comparing remifentanil-based analgosedation to other commonly used agents (fentanyl, midazolam, morphine, and propofol) for ICU sedation and 1 trial comparing morphine to daily sedation interruption with propofol or midazolam were reviewed. Remifentanil is an ideal agent for analgosedation due to its easy titratability and organ-in dependent metabolism. When compared to sedative-hypnotic regimens, remifentanil-based regimens were associated with shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, more rapid weaning from the ventilator, and shorter ICU length of stay. Compared to fentanyl-based regimens, remifentanil had similar efficacy with the exception of increased pain requirements upon remifentanil discontinuation. Analgosedation was well tolerated, with no significant differences in hemodynamic stability compared to sedative-hypnotic regimens.

Conclusions:

Analgosedation is an efficacious and well-tolerated approach to management of ICU sedation with improved patient outcomes compared to sedative-hypnotic approaches. Additional well-designed trials are warranted to clarify the role of analgosedation in the management of ICU sedation, including trials with nonopioid analgesics.

Pharmacology of sedative-analgesic agents: dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, ketamine, volatile anesthetics, and the role of peripheral Mu antagonists

In this article, the authors discuss the pharmacology of sedative-analgesic agents like dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, ketamine, and volatile anesthetics. Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective alpha-2 agonist that provides anxiolysis and cooperative sedation without respiratory depression. It has organ protective effects against ischemic and hypoxic injury, including cardioprotection, neuroprotection, and renoprotection. Remifentanil is an ultra-short-acting opioid that acts as a mu-receptor agonist. Ketamine is a nonbarbiturate phencyclidine derivative and provides analgesia and apparent anesthesia with relative hemodynamic stability. Volatile anesthetics such as isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane are in daily use in the operating room in the delivery of general anesthesia. A major advantage of these halogenated ethers is their quick onset, quick offset, and ease of titration in rendering the patient unconscious, immobile, and amnestic.

A systematic review of the use of opioid medication for those with moderate to severe cancer pain and renal impairment: a European Palliative Care Research Collaborative opioid guidelines project

BACKGROUND

Opioid use in patients with renal impairment can lead to increased adverse effects. Opioids differ in their effect in renal impairment in both efficacy and tolerability. This systematic literature review forms the basis of guidelines for opioid use in renal impairment and cancer pain as part of the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative's opioid guidelines project.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to identify and assess the quality of evidence for the safe and effective use of opioids for the relief of cancer pain in patients with renal impairment and to produce guidelines.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MedLine, EMBASE and CINAHL were systematically searched in addition to hand searching of relevant journals.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they reported a clinical outcome relevant to the use of selected opioids in cancer-related pain and renal impairment. The selected opioids were morphine, diamorphine, codeine, dextropropoxyphene, dihydrocodeine, oxycodone, hydromorphone, buprenorphine, tramadol, alfentanil, fentanyl, sufentanil, remifentanil, pethidine and methadone. No direct comparator was required for inclusion. Studies assessing the long-term efficacy of opioids during dialysis were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This is a narrative systematic review and no meta-analysis was performed. The Grading of RECOMMENDATIONS Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the quality of the studies and to formulate guidelines.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen original articles were identified. Eight prospective and seven retrospective clinical studies were identified but no randomized controlled trials. No results were found for diamorphine, codeine, dihydrocodeine, buprenorphine, tramadol, dextropropoxyphene, methadone or remifentanil.

CONCLUSIONS

All of the studies identified have a significant risk of bias inherent in the study methodology and there is additional significant risk of publication bias. Overall evidence is of very low quality. The direct clinical evidence in cancer-related pain and renal impairment is insufficient to allow formulation of guidelines but is suggestive of significant differences in risk between opioids.

RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS regarding opioid use in renal impairment and cancer pain are made on the basis of pharmacokinetic data, extrapolation from non-cancer pain studies and from clinical experience. The risk of opioid use in renal impairment is stratified according to the activity of opioid metabolites, potential for accumulation and reports of successful or harmful use. Fentanyl, alfentanil and methadone are identified, with caveats, as the least likely to cause harm when used appropriately. Morphine may be associated with toxicity in patients with renal impairment. Unwanted side effects with morphine may be satisfactorily dealt with by either increasing the dosing interval or reducing the 24 hour dose or by switching to an alternative opioid.

Sedation and analgesia for the mechanically ventilated patient

Mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit routinely require sedative and analgesic medications to manage pain and anxiety. These medications may have unpredictable effects with long-term use. Strategies that may help to improve patient outcomes include thoughtful selection of medications, use of objective sedation and pain scales, and implementation of protocolized sedation.

Pain management in the critically

The treatment of pain continues to be a major concern in the critically ill patient. Despite advances in pain management, a greater understanding of the mechanisms of pain and advanced methods of analgesic delivery, the treatment of pain is not always a priority on the intensive care unit. Difficulties with pain assessment, in the critically ill ventilated, sedated patient compound the problems of pain management. Physiological signs are difficult to interpret and psychological factors must be considered.

[Agents for sedation and analgesia in the intensive care unit]

Sedation-analgesia for critically ill patients is usually performed with the combination of a sedative agent and an opioid. Midazolam and propofol are the agents most commonly used for sedation in ICU. The quality of the sedation is quite comparable with both agents, but pharmacokinetic properties of propofol allow a more rapid weaning process from mechanical ventilation. However, implementation of algorithms to adjust drug dosages reduces ventilator days and limits the kinetic differences between propofol and midazolam. Among the adverse events associated with propofol, propofol infusion syndrome is a rare but lethal aspect of propofol therapy. Opioids are the mainstay of analgesic therapy. They interact synergistically with hypnotics. Sufentanil, fentanyl and morphine are the most frequently used opioids. Remifentanil is an ultrashort acting opiate that does not appear to accumulate with prolonged use. The advent of remifentanil has allowed the use of analgesia-based sedation.

The place for short-acting opioids: special emphasis on remifentanil

Pain is among the worst possible experiences for the critically ill. Therefore, nearly all intensive care patients receive some kind of pain relief, and opioids are most frequently administered. Morphine has a number of important adverse effects, including histamine release, pruritus, constipation, and, in particular, accumulation of morphine-6-glucuronide in patients with renal impairment. Hence, it is not an ideal analgesic for use in critically ill patients. Although the synthetic opioids fentanyl, alfentanil, and sufentanil have better profiles, they undergo hepatic metabolism and their continuous infusion also leads to accumulation and prolonged drug effects. Various attempts have been made to limit these adverse effects, including daily interruption of infusion of sedatives and analgesics, intermittent bolus injections rather than continuous infusions, and selection of a ventilatory support pattern that allows more spontaneous ventilation. However, these techniques at best only limit the effects of drug accumulation, but they do not solve the problem. Another type of approach is to use remifentanil in critically ill patients. Remifentanil is metabolized by unspecific blood and tissue esterases and undergoes rapid metabolism, independent of the duration of infusion or any organ insufficiency. There are data indicating that remifentanil can be used for analgesia and sedation in all kinds of adult intensive care unit patients, and that its use will result in rapid and predictable offset of effect. This may permit both a significant reduction in weaning and extubation times, and clear differentiation between over-sedation and brain dysfunction. This article provides an overview of the use of short-acting opioids in the intensive care unit, with special emphasis on remifentanil. It summarizes the currently available study data regarding remifentanil and provides recommendations for clinical use of this agent.

Medications for analgesia and sedation in the intensive care unit: an overview

Critically ill patients are often treated with continuous intravenous infusions of sedative drugs. However, this is associated with high risk for over-sedation, which can result in prolonged stay in the intensive care unit. Recently introduced protocols (daily interruption and analgosedation) have proven to reduce the length of intensive care unit stay. To introduce these protocols, new agents or new regimens with the well established agents may be required. In this article we briefly discuss these new regimens and new agents, focusing on the short-acting substances.

[Daily interruption of sedation in intensive care unit patients with renal impairment: remifentanil-midazolam compared to fentanyl-midazolam]

OBJECTIVE

We compared extubation time following daily interruption of sedation in intensive care unit patients with renal impairment with two sedation regimes remifentanil-midazolam and fentanyl-midazolam.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized double-blind trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with renal impairment needing mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours. Two groups: remifentanil (R) and fentanyl (F), Infusion rates were titrated to achieve the desired Ramsay score. The two groups received midazolam (2.5 mg then 0.1 mg/kg/h).

RESULTS

Nineteen patients were included. Patient's characteristics, mean sedation time and sedation quality were comparable. Extubation time was significantly shorter in R group (1480+/-980 versus 2880+/-1280 min, P=0.04). Weaning time was also shorter in R group (220+/-164 versus 720+/-480 min). Agitation on weaning was comparable in the two groups. Group R received significantly more morphine than group F after interruption of sedation.

CONCLUSION

Daily interruption of sedation with remifentanil is associated with shorter weaning and extubation time in patients with renal impairment. However further studies are necessary to determine if this issue is associated with lower rate of ventilation induced complications.

Spotlight on remifentanil: its analgesic and sedative use in the intensive care unit

Remifentanil (Ultivatrade), a 4-anilidopiperidine derivative of fentanyl, is an ultra-short-acting micro-opioid receptor agonist indicated to provide analgesia and sedation in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil is a useful option for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU setting. Its unique properties (e.g. organ-independent metabolism, lack of accumulation, rapid offset of action) set it apart from other opioid agents. Remifentanil is at least as effective as comparator opioids such as fentanyl, morphine and sufentanil in providing pain relief and sedation in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. Moreover, it allows fast and predictable extubation, as well as being associated with a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and quicker ICU discharge than comparators in some studies. In addition, remifentanil is generally well tolerated in this patient population. Thus, remifentanil is a welcome addition to the currently available pharmacological agents employed in the management of mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

Sedation in the intensive care unit with remifentanil/propofol versus midazolam/fentanyl: a randomised, open-label, pharmacoeconomic trial

Introduction

Remifentanil is an opioid with a unique pharmacokinetic profile. Its organ-independent elimination and short context-sensitive half time of 3 to 4 minutes lead to a highly predictable offset of action. We tested the hypothesis that with an analgesia-based sedation regimen with remifentanil and propofol, patients after cardiac surgery reach predefined criteria for discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) sooner, resulting in shorter duration of time spent in the ICU, compared to a conventional regimen consisting of midazolam and fentanyl. In addition, the two regimens were compared regarding their costs.

Methods

In this prospective, open-label, randomised, single-centre study, a total of 80 patients (18 to 75 years old), who had undergone cardiac surgery, were postoperatively assigned to one of two treatment regimens for sedation in the ICU for 12 to 72 hours. Patients in the remifentanil/propofol group received remifentanil (6- max. 60 μg kg^-1 h^-1; dose exceeds recommended labelling). Propofol (0.5 to 4.0 mg kg^-1 h^-1) was supplemented only in the case of insufficient sedation at maximal remifentanil dose. Patients in the midazolam/fentanyl group received midazolam (0.02 to 0.2 mg kg^-1 h^-1) and fentanyl (1.0 to 7.0 μg kg^-1 h^-1). For treatment of pain after extubation, both groups received morphine and/or non-opioid analgesics.

Results

The time intervals (mean values ± standard deviation) from arrival at the ICU until extubation (20.7 ± 5.2 hours versus 24.2 h ± 7.0 hours) and from arrival until eligible discharge from the ICU (46.1 ± 22.0 hours versus 62.4 ± 27.2 hours) were significantly (p < 0.05) shorter in the remifentanil/propofol group. Overall costs of the ICU stay per patient were equal (approximately €1,700 on average).

Conclusion

Compared with midazolam/fentanyl, a remifentanil-based regimen for analgesia and sedation supplemented with propofol significantly reduced the time on mechanical ventilation and allowed earlier discharge from the ICU, at equal overall costs.

Remifentanil

Remifentanil (Ultiva), a 4-anilidopiperidine derivative of fentanyl, is an ultra-short-acting micro-opioid receptor agonist indicated to provide analgesia and sedation in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients.Analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil is a useful option for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU setting. Its unique properties (e.g. organ-independent metabolism, lack of accumulation, rapid offset of action) set it apart from other opioid agents. Remifentanil is at least as effective as comparator opioids such as fentanyl, morphine and sufentanil in providing pain relief and sedation in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. Moreover, it allows fast and predictable extubation, as well as being associated with a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and quicker ICU discharge than comparators in some studies. In addition, remifentanil is generally well tolerated in this patient population. Thus, remifentanil is a welcome addition to the currently available pharmacological agents employed in the management of mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

Remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia following cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Remifentanil is increasingly used as a component of cardiac anaesthesia. Following cardiac surgery remifentanil is often substituted for alternative opioids on the intensive care unit. We were interested to evaluate postoperative continuation of remifentanil in the form of remifentanil patient control analgesia (RPCA) for those patients who received intraoperative remifentanil. The objectives of this study were to assess the safety, efficacy and feasibility of the RPCA.

METHODS

Ten patients who received an intravenous infusion of remifentanil perioperatively for coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) had their remifentanil infusion converted to RPCA following extubation on the intensive care unit. Remifentanil patient control analgesia delivered an initial background infusion consistent with the infusion rate at extubation and with a bolus facility of 50 microg administered over 5 min followed by a 5-min lockout. Data collection included sedation and pain scores, respiratory rate, arterial blood gases, number of successful/unsuccessful attempts and the background infusion rate for each subject over a period of 12 h following extubation.

RESULTS

The data from nine male and one female patient were analyzed by using SPSS11 for Windows. During the study period the patients achieved adequate pain control and made more RPCA attempts at lower background infusion rates. No episodes of apnoea, SpO(2) less than 95% or a rise in PaCO(2) greater than 6.5 kPa were observed.

CONCLUSION

Remifentanil patient control analgesia with a background infusion was effective and safe for postoperative pain relief in this group of spontaneously breathing ICU patients following cardiac surgery.

Adverse Events Associated with Sedatives, Analgesics, and Other Drugs That Provide Patient Comfort in the Intensive Care Unit

Since the 2002 publication of multidisciplinary clinical practice guidelines for intensive care unit (ICU) sedation and analgesia, additional information regarding adverse drug events has been reported. Our understanding of the risks associated with these sedative and analgesic agents promises to improve outcomes by helping clinicians identify and respond to therapeutic misadventures sooner. This review focuses on many issues, including the potentially fatal consequences associated with the propofol infusion syndrome, the evolving understanding of propylene glycol intoxication associated with parenteral lorazepam, new data involving high-dose and long-term dexmedetomidine therapy, haloperidol- and methadone-related prolongation of QTc intervals on the electrocardiogram, adverse events associated with atypical antipsychotics, and the potential for nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs to interfere with bone healing.

Decreased duration of mechanical ventilation when comparing analgesia-based sedation using remifentanil with standard hypnotic-based sedation for up to 10 days in intensive care unit patients: a randomised trial [ISRCTN47583497]

INTRODUCTION

This randomised, open-label, multicentre study compared the safety and efficacy of an analgesia-based sedation regime using remifentanil with a conventional hypnotic-based sedation regime in critically ill patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation for up to 10 days.

METHODS

One hundred and five randomised patients received either a remifentanil-based sedation regime (initial dose 6 to 9 microg kg(-1) h(-1) (0.1 to 0.15 microg kg(-1) min(-1)) titrated to response before the addition of midazolam for further sedation (n = 57), or a midazolam-based sedation regime with fentanyl or morphine added for analgesia (n = 48). Patients were sedated to an optimal Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) score of 3 or 4 and a pain intensity (PI) score of 1 or 2.

RESULTS

The remifentanil-based sedation regime significantly reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation by more than 2 days (53.5 hours, P = 0.033), and significantly reduced the time from the start of the weaning process to extubation by more than 1 day (26.6 hours, P < 0.001). There was a trend towards shortening the stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) by 1 day. The median time of optimal SAS and PI was the same in both groups. There was a significant difference in the median time to offset of pharmacodynamic effects when discontinuing study medication in patients not extubated at 10 days (remifentanil 0.250 hour, comparator 1.167 hours; P < 0.001). Of the patients treated with remifentanil, 26% did not receive any midazolam during the study. In those patients that did receive midazolam, the use of remifentanil considerably reduced the total dose of midazolam required. Between days 3 and 10 the weighted mean infusion rate of remifentanil remained constant with no evidence of accumulation or of a development of tolerance to remifentanil. There was no difference between the groups in SAS or PI score in the 24 hours after stopping the study medication. Remifentanil was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil was well tolerated; it reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation and improves the weaning process compared with standard hypnotic-based sedation regimes in ICU patients requiring long-term ventilation for up to 10 days.

Recent advances in intravenous anaesthesia

Efforts to develop new hypnotic compounds continue, although several have recently failed in development. Propofol has been reformulated in various presentations with and without preservatives. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences exist between some of these preparations, and it is currently unclear whether any have substantial advantages over the original presentation. The use of target-controlled infusion (TCI) has been extended to include paediatric anaesthesia and sedation. Application of TCI to remifentanil is now licensed. Linking of electroencephalogram (EEG) monitoring to TCI for closed-loop anaesthesia remains a research tool, although commercial development may follow. The availability of stereoisomer ketamine and improved understanding of its pharmacology have increased non-anaesthetic use of ketamine as an adjunct analgesic. It may be useful in subhypnotic doses for postsurgical patients with pain refractory to morphine administration.

Offset of pharmacodynamic effects and safety of remifentanil in intensive care unit patients with various degrees of renal impairment

INTRODUCTION

This open label, multicentre study was conducted to assess the times to offset of the pharmacodynamic effects and the safety of remifentanil in patients with varying degrees of renal impairment requiring intensive care.

METHODS

A total of 40 patients, who were aged 18 years or older and had normal/mildly impaired renal function (estimated creatinine clearance >/= 50 ml/min; n = 10) or moderate/severe renal impairment (estimated creatinine clearance <50 ml/min; n = 30), were entered into the study. Remifentanil was infused for up to 72 hours (initial rate 6-9 microgram/kg per hour), with propofol administered if required, to achieve a target Sedation-Agitation Scale score of 2-4, with no or mild pain.

RESULTS

There was no evidence of increased offset time with increased duration of exposure to remifentanil in either group. The time to offset of the effects of remifentanil (at 8, 24, 48 and 72 hours during scheduled down-titrations of the infusion) were more variable and were statistically significantly longer in the moderate/severe group than in the normal/mild group at 24 hours and 72 hours. These observed differences were not clinically significant (the difference in mean offset at 72 hours was only 16.5 min). Propofol consumption was lower with the remifentanil based technique than with hypnotic based sedative techniques. There were no statistically significant differences between the renal function groups in the incidence of adverse events, and no deaths were attributable to remifentanil use.

CONCLUSION

Remifentanil was well tolerated, and the offset of pharmacodynamic effects was not prolonged either as a result of renal dysfunction or prolonged infusion up to 72 hours.