Remifentanil for the insertion and removal of long-term central venous access during monitored anesthesia care.
AffiliationDepartment of Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, St. Vincent's, University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland. email@example.com
Analgesics, Opioid/administration & dosage/adverse effects/*therapeutic use
Anesthetics, Intravenous/administration & dosage/therapeutic use
Catheterization, Central Venous/*methods
Piperidines/administration & dosage/adverse effects/*therapeutic use
Propofol/administration & dosage/therapeutic use
MetadataShow full item record
CitationJ Clin Anesth. 2011 Jun;23(4):286-91.
JournalJournal of clinical anesthesia
AbstractSTUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the analgesic efficacy of three different rates of remifentanil infusion in patients undergoing insertion or removal of long-term central venous access devices during monitored anesthesia care and local anesthetic field infiltration. DESIGN: Double-blinded, randomized, controlled study. SETTING: Operating theatre of an University hospital. PATIENTS: 44 unpremedicated, ASA physical status 1 and 2 patients, aged 18-65 years, undergoing insertion or removal of a Port-a-Cath or Hickman catheter. INTERVENTIONS: Patients sedated with a propofol target-controlled infusion were randomly allocated to three groups: Group R25 (n = 14), Group R50 (n = 15), and Group R75 (n = 15), to receive remifentanil 0.025, 0.05, and 0.075 mug/kg/min, respectively. Rescue remifentanil 0.5 mug/kg was administered for pain scores > 3. The remifentanil infusion rate was maintained constant unless respiratory and/or cardiovascular unwanted events occurred, whereupon the rate was adjusted in 0.01 mug/kg/min decrements as necessary. MEASUREMENTS: Pain scores (primary outcome), sedation, and movement scores (secondary outcomes) were assessed during local anesthetic infiltration of the anterior chest wall and 5 other procedural steps. MAIN RESULTS: All infusion rates had equal analgesic efficacy, as shown by comparable pain scores, number of rescue boluses, and number of patients requiring rescue analgesia. Excessive sedation was associated with the highest remifentanil rate such that Group R75 patients were significantly more sedated than Groups R25 or R50 at selective procedural steps (P < 0.05). More Group R75 patients (6/15) required remifentanil rate reduction than did patients from Group R50 (1/15) or Group R25 (0/14), P < 0.01, most commonly because of respiratory depression. CONCLUSIONS: For the insertion or removal of long-term central venous access devices, all three remifentanil infusion rates proved to be equally analgesic-efficient. However, the excessive sedation and tendency to respiratory and cardiovascular events associated with the highest remifentanil infusion rate renders such a rate less desirable for this purpose.