Cargando…

Remifentanil versus fentanyl for analgesia based sedation to provide patient comfort in the intensive care unit: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial [ISRCTN43755713]

INTRODUCTION: This double-blind, randomized, multicentre study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of remifentanil and fentanyl for intensive care unit (ICU) sedation and analgesia. METHODS: Intubated cardiac, general postsurgical or medical patients (aged ≥ 18 years), who were mechanic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Muellejans, Bernd, López, Angel, Cross, Michael H, Bonome, César, Morrison, Lachlan, Kirkham, Andrew JT
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2004
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC420059/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14975049
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc2398
_version_ 1782121462067363840
author Muellejans, Bernd
López, Angel
Cross, Michael H
Bonome, César
Morrison, Lachlan
Kirkham, Andrew JT
author_facet Muellejans, Bernd
López, Angel
Cross, Michael H
Bonome, César
Morrison, Lachlan
Kirkham, Andrew JT
author_sort Muellejans, Bernd
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: This double-blind, randomized, multicentre study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of remifentanil and fentanyl for intensive care unit (ICU) sedation and analgesia. METHODS: Intubated cardiac, general postsurgical or medical patients (aged ≥ 18 years), who were mechanically ventilated for 12–72 hours, received remifentanil (9 μg/kg per hour; n = 77) or fentanyl (1.5 μg/kg per hour; n = 75). Initial opioid titration was supplemented with propofol (0.5 mg/kg per hour), if required, to achieve optimal sedation (i.e. a Sedation–Agitation Scale score of 4). RESULTS: The mean percentages of time in optimal sedation were 88.3% for remifentanil and 89.3% for fentanyl (not significant). Patients with a Sedation–Agitation Scale score of 4 exhibited significantly less between-patient variability in optimal sedation on remifentanil (variance ratio of fentanyl to remifentanil 1.84; P = 0.009). Of patients who received fentanyl 40% required propofol, as compared with 35% of those who received remifentanil (median total doses 683 mg and 378 mg, respectively; P = 0.065). Recovery was rapid (median time to extubation: 1.1 hours for remifentanil and 1.3 hours for fentanyl; not significant). Remifentanil patients who experienced pain did so for significantly longer during extubation (6.5% of the time versus 1.4%; P = 0.013), postextubation (10.2% versus 3.6%; P = 0.001) and post-treatment (13.5% versus 5.1%; P = 0.001), but they exhibited similar haemodynamic stability with no significant differences in adverse event incidence. CONCLUSION: Analgesia based sedation with remifentanil titrated to response provided effective sedation and rapid extubation without the need for propofol in most patients. Fentanyl was similar, probably because the dosing algorithm demanded frequent monitoring and adjustment, thereby preventing over-sedation. Rapid offset of analgesia with remifentanil resulted in a greater incidence of pain, highlighting the need for proactive pain management when transitioning to longer acting analgesics, which is difficult within a double-blind study but would be quite possible under normal circumstances.
format Text
id pubmed-420059
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2004
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-4200592004-06-04 Remifentanil versus fentanyl for analgesia based sedation to provide patient comfort in the intensive care unit: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial [ISRCTN43755713] Muellejans, Bernd López, Angel Cross, Michael H Bonome, César Morrison, Lachlan Kirkham, Andrew JT Crit Care Research INTRODUCTION: This double-blind, randomized, multicentre study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of remifentanil and fentanyl for intensive care unit (ICU) sedation and analgesia. METHODS: Intubated cardiac, general postsurgical or medical patients (aged ≥ 18 years), who were mechanically ventilated for 12–72 hours, received remifentanil (9 μg/kg per hour; n = 77) or fentanyl (1.5 μg/kg per hour; n = 75). Initial opioid titration was supplemented with propofol (0.5 mg/kg per hour), if required, to achieve optimal sedation (i.e. a Sedation–Agitation Scale score of 4). RESULTS: The mean percentages of time in optimal sedation were 88.3% for remifentanil and 89.3% for fentanyl (not significant). Patients with a Sedation–Agitation Scale score of 4 exhibited significantly less between-patient variability in optimal sedation on remifentanil (variance ratio of fentanyl to remifentanil 1.84; P = 0.009). Of patients who received fentanyl 40% required propofol, as compared with 35% of those who received remifentanil (median total doses 683 mg and 378 mg, respectively; P = 0.065). Recovery was rapid (median time to extubation: 1.1 hours for remifentanil and 1.3 hours for fentanyl; not significant). Remifentanil patients who experienced pain did so for significantly longer during extubation (6.5% of the time versus 1.4%; P = 0.013), postextubation (10.2% versus 3.6%; P = 0.001) and post-treatment (13.5% versus 5.1%; P = 0.001), but they exhibited similar haemodynamic stability with no significant differences in adverse event incidence. CONCLUSION: Analgesia based sedation with remifentanil titrated to response provided effective sedation and rapid extubation without the need for propofol in most patients. Fentanyl was similar, probably because the dosing algorithm demanded frequent monitoring and adjustment, thereby preventing over-sedation. Rapid offset of analgesia with remifentanil resulted in a greater incidence of pain, highlighting the need for proactive pain management when transitioning to longer acting analgesics, which is difficult within a double-blind study but would be quite possible under normal circumstances. BioMed Central 2004 2003-11-20 /pmc/articles/PMC420059/ /pubmed/14975049 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc2398 Text en Copyright © 2004 Muellejans et al., licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.
spellingShingle Research
Muellejans, Bernd
López, Angel
Cross, Michael H
Bonome, César
Morrison, Lachlan
Kirkham, Andrew JT
Remifentanil versus fentanyl for analgesia based sedation to provide patient comfort in the intensive care unit: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial [ISRCTN43755713]
title Remifentanil versus fentanyl for analgesia based sedation to provide patient comfort in the intensive care unit: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial [ISRCTN43755713]
title_full Remifentanil versus fentanyl for analgesia based sedation to provide patient comfort in the intensive care unit: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial [ISRCTN43755713]
title_fullStr Remifentanil versus fentanyl for analgesia based sedation to provide patient comfort in the intensive care unit: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial [ISRCTN43755713]
title_full_unstemmed Remifentanil versus fentanyl for analgesia based sedation to provide patient comfort in the intensive care unit: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial [ISRCTN43755713]
title_short Remifentanil versus fentanyl for analgesia based sedation to provide patient comfort in the intensive care unit: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial [ISRCTN43755713]
title_sort remifentanil versus fentanyl for analgesia based sedation to provide patient comfort in the intensive care unit: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial [isrctn43755713]
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC420059/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14975049
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc2398
work_keys_str_mv AT muellejansbernd remifentanilversusfentanylforanalgesiabasedsedationtoprovidepatientcomfortintheintensivecareunitarandomizeddoubleblindcontrolledtrialisrctn43755713
AT lopezangel remifentanilversusfentanylforanalgesiabasedsedationtoprovidepatientcomfortintheintensivecareunitarandomizeddoubleblindcontrolledtrialisrctn43755713
AT crossmichaelh remifentanilversusfentanylforanalgesiabasedsedationtoprovidepatientcomfortintheintensivecareunitarandomizeddoubleblindcontrolledtrialisrctn43755713
AT bonomecesar remifentanilversusfentanylforanalgesiabasedsedationtoprovidepatientcomfortintheintensivecareunitarandomizeddoubleblindcontrolledtrialisrctn43755713
AT morrisonlachlan remifentanilversusfentanylforanalgesiabasedsedationtoprovidepatientcomfortintheintensivecareunitarandomizeddoubleblindcontrolledtrialisrctn43755713
AT kirkhamandrewjt remifentanilversusfentanylforanalgesiabasedsedationtoprovidepatientcomfortintheintensivecareunitarandomizeddoubleblindcontrolledtrialisrctn43755713