A comparison of three different target-controlled remifentanil infusion rates during target-controlled propofol infusion for oocyte retrieval.

Demet Coskun, Berrin Gunaydin, Ayca Tas, Gozde Inan, Hulya Celebi, Kadir Kaya
Author Information
  1. Demet Coskun: Department of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. dcoskun@gazi.edu.tr

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of three different target-controlled remifentanil infusion rates during target-controlled propofol infusion on hemodynamic parameters, pain, sedation, and recovery score during oocyte retrieval.
METHODS: Sixty-nine women were scheduled for oocyte retrieval. Target-controlled propofol infusion at an effect-site concentration of 1.5 μg/mL was instituted. The patients were randomly allocated to receive remifentanil at an effect-site concentration of either 1.5 (group I, n = 23), 2 (group II, n = 23) or 2.5 ng/mL (group III, n = 23). Hemodynamic variables, sedation, pain, the Aldrete recovery score, and side effects were recorded.
RESULTS: Hemodynamic variables, sedation and pain scores and the number of patients with the maximum Aldrete recovery score 10 min after the procedure were comparable among the groups. The number of patients in group III with the maximum Aldrete recovery score 5 min after the procedure was significantly lower than that in groups I and II. One patient in group II and one patient in group III suffered from nausea.
CONCLUSION: Similar pain-free conscious sedation conditions without significant changes in hemodynamic parameters were provided by all three protocols. However, target controlled infusion of remifentanil at 1.5 or 2 ng/mL proved superior at providing early recovery compared to 2.5 ng/mL.

References

  1. Anesth Analg. 2009 Mar;108(3):852-7 [PMID: 19224793]
  2. J Clin Anesth. 2002 Feb;14(1):1-5 [PMID: 11880013]
  3. Hum Reprod. 2006 Jul;21(7):1672-9 [PMID: 16818961]
  4. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2001 Mar;20(3):228-45 [PMID: 11332059]
  5. J Opioid Manag. 2007 Sep-Oct;3(5):267-72 [PMID: 18181381]
  6. Br J Anaesth. 2008 Jan;100(1):125-30 [PMID: 18037667]
  7. Anesth Analg. 2005 Aug;101(2):365-370 [PMID: 16037145]
  8. J Korean Med Sci. 2003 Dec;18(6):863-8 [PMID: 14676445]
  9. Anesthesiology. 2003 Nov;99(5):1214-9 [PMID: 14576561]
  10. Anaesthesia. 1998 Apr;53 Suppl 1:82-6 [PMID: 9640123]
  11. Hum Reprod. 2000 Oct;15(10):2197-9 [PMID: 11006198]
  12. Anesth Analg. 2009 Mar;108(3):828-34 [PMID: 19224790]
  13. J Clin Anesth. 2005 Nov;17(7):549-53 [PMID: 16297756]
  14. Br J Anaesth. 2003 May;90(5):617-22 [PMID: 12697589]
  15. Can J Anaesth. 2006 Apr;53(4):357-62 [PMID: 16575033]
  16. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2003 Apr;12(2):83-8 [PMID: 15321493]
  17. Br J Anaesth. 2007 Dec;99(6):876-80 [PMID: 18006530]
  18. Anesth Analg. 2000 May;90(5):1234-5 [PMID: 10781489]
  19. Minerva Anestesiol. 2005 Jun;71(6):335-7 [PMID: 15886597]
  20. Anesthesiology. 1999 Jun;90(6):1502-16 [PMID: 10360845]
  21. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2007 Jan;16(1):13-6 [PMID: 17125991]

MeSH Term

Adult
Anesthesia Recovery Period
Anesthetics, Intravenous
Blood Pressure
Female
Heart Rate
Humans
Infusions, Intravenous
Middle Aged
Oocyte Retrieval
Pain, Postoperative
Piperidines
Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
Propofol
Remifentanil

Chemicals

Anesthetics, Intravenous
Piperidines
Remifentanil
Propofol

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0infusion5grouprecoverytarget-controlledremifentanilsedationscore2threepropofolpainoocyteretrieval1patientsn=23IIng/mLIIIAldreteeffectsdifferentrateshemodynamicparameterseffect-siteconcentrationHemodynamicvariablesnumbermaximumminproceduregroupspatientOBJECTIVE:evaluateMETHODS:Sixty-ninewomenscheduledTarget-controlledμg/mLinstitutedrandomlyallocatedreceiveeithersiderecordedRESULTS:scores10comparableamongsignificantlylowerOneonesufferednauseaCONCLUSION:Similarpain-freeconsciousconditionswithoutsignificantchangesprovidedprotocolsHowevertargetcontrolledprovedsuperiorprovidingearlycomparedcomparison

Similar Articles

Cited By