Cargando…

The comparison of feasibility and safety on fiberoptic guided intubation under conscious sedation with remifentanil and propofol

BACKGROUND: Oropharyngeal manipulation is problematic when patients have a gag reflex. Sedation can suppress gag reflex, but can cause serious airway problems. We compared remifentanil (Group R) and propofol (Group P) in terms of cooperation and loss of gag reflex, while drugs were administered incr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Hae Mi, Sakong, Jun, Jee, Dae-Lim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society of Anesthesiologists 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3790032/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24101955
http://dx.doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2013.65.3.215
_version_ 1782286535412940800
author Lee, Hae Mi
Sakong, Jun
Jee, Dae-Lim
author_facet Lee, Hae Mi
Sakong, Jun
Jee, Dae-Lim
author_sort Lee, Hae Mi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Oropharyngeal manipulation is problematic when patients have a gag reflex. Sedation can suppress gag reflex, but can cause serious airway problems. We compared remifentanil (Group R) and propofol (Group P) in terms of cooperation and loss of gag reflex, while drugs were administered incrementally using target controlled infusion (TCI). METHODS: Fifty seven patients who required awake fiberoptic intubation were randomized to Group R or Group P. After measurement of baseline gag trigger point index (GTPI), TCI was set to effect-site concentration (Ce) of 1 ng/ml (Group R) or 1 µg/ml (Group P), then titrated by 0.5 increment until GTPI score reached 0. The incidence of drop-out and decreased cooperation, Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) and Ce at loss of GR, and complications were assessed. RESULTS: Seven patients were dropped out in Group P due to deep sedation and disobedient behavior, but none in Group R (P = 0.015). Gag reflex suppressed as RSS increased in both groups (P < 0.001), however, the incidence of elimination of gag reflex clustered at RSS 2 in Group R (P < 0.001), whereas it was evenly distributed in Group P (P = 0.20). The incidence of patients who were spontaneously roused (gag reflex elimination at RSS 1 and 2) were higher in Group R than in Group P (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Deep sedation and impaired cooperation were observed only in Group P and spontaneously roused patients were higher in Group R, suggesting that remifentanil is more suitable for cooperative elimination of GR.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3790032
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher The Korean Society of Anesthesiologists
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37900322013-10-07 The comparison of feasibility and safety on fiberoptic guided intubation under conscious sedation with remifentanil and propofol Lee, Hae Mi Sakong, Jun Jee, Dae-Lim Korean J Anesthesiol Clinical Research Article BACKGROUND: Oropharyngeal manipulation is problematic when patients have a gag reflex. Sedation can suppress gag reflex, but can cause serious airway problems. We compared remifentanil (Group R) and propofol (Group P) in terms of cooperation and loss of gag reflex, while drugs were administered incrementally using target controlled infusion (TCI). METHODS: Fifty seven patients who required awake fiberoptic intubation were randomized to Group R or Group P. After measurement of baseline gag trigger point index (GTPI), TCI was set to effect-site concentration (Ce) of 1 ng/ml (Group R) or 1 µg/ml (Group P), then titrated by 0.5 increment until GTPI score reached 0. The incidence of drop-out and decreased cooperation, Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) and Ce at loss of GR, and complications were assessed. RESULTS: Seven patients were dropped out in Group P due to deep sedation and disobedient behavior, but none in Group R (P = 0.015). Gag reflex suppressed as RSS increased in both groups (P < 0.001), however, the incidence of elimination of gag reflex clustered at RSS 2 in Group R (P < 0.001), whereas it was evenly distributed in Group P (P = 0.20). The incidence of patients who were spontaneously roused (gag reflex elimination at RSS 1 and 2) were higher in Group R than in Group P (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Deep sedation and impaired cooperation were observed only in Group P and spontaneously roused patients were higher in Group R, suggesting that remifentanil is more suitable for cooperative elimination of GR. The Korean Society of Anesthesiologists 2013-09 2013-09-25 /pmc/articles/PMC3790032/ /pubmed/24101955 http://dx.doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2013.65.3.215 Text en Copyright © the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists, 2013 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Research Article
Lee, Hae Mi
Sakong, Jun
Jee, Dae-Lim
The comparison of feasibility and safety on fiberoptic guided intubation under conscious sedation with remifentanil and propofol
title The comparison of feasibility and safety on fiberoptic guided intubation under conscious sedation with remifentanil and propofol
title_full The comparison of feasibility and safety on fiberoptic guided intubation under conscious sedation with remifentanil and propofol
title_fullStr The comparison of feasibility and safety on fiberoptic guided intubation under conscious sedation with remifentanil and propofol
title_full_unstemmed The comparison of feasibility and safety on fiberoptic guided intubation under conscious sedation with remifentanil and propofol
title_short The comparison of feasibility and safety on fiberoptic guided intubation under conscious sedation with remifentanil and propofol
title_sort comparison of feasibility and safety on fiberoptic guided intubation under conscious sedation with remifentanil and propofol
topic Clinical Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3790032/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24101955
http://dx.doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2013.65.3.215
work_keys_str_mv AT leehaemi thecomparisonoffeasibilityandsafetyonfiberopticguidedintubationunderconscioussedationwithremifentanilandpropofol
AT sakongjun thecomparisonoffeasibilityandsafetyonfiberopticguidedintubationunderconscioussedationwithremifentanilandpropofol
AT jeedaelim thecomparisonoffeasibilityandsafetyonfiberopticguidedintubationunderconscioussedationwithremifentanilandpropofol
AT leehaemi comparisonoffeasibilityandsafetyonfiberopticguidedintubationunderconscioussedationwithremifentanilandpropofol
AT sakongjun comparisonoffeasibilityandsafetyonfiberopticguidedintubationunderconscioussedationwithremifentanilandpropofol
AT jeedaelim comparisonoffeasibilityandsafetyonfiberopticguidedintubationunderconscioussedationwithremifentanilandpropofol