Median effective concentration of remifentanil for the inhibition of laryngoscope-induced cardiovascular responses

Liu,Zhenhai; Wang,Fei; Wang,Weizhi; Luo,Yanhua

doi:10.3892/etm.2016.3264

Median effective concentration of remifentanil for the inhibition of laryngoscope-induced cardiovascular responses

Authors:
- Zhenhai Liu
- Fei Wang
- Weizhi Wang
- Yanhua Luo
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Anesthesiology, Weifang People's Hospital, Weifang, Shandong 261041, P.R. China
Published online on: April 18, 2016 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2016.3264
Pages: 457-462

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The aim of this study was to calculate the median effective concentration (EC50) of remifentanil (Rem) for the inhibition of laryngoscope-induced cardiovascular responses, and to observe its effects on the cardiovascular system and stress system. The study included 20 patients, who underwent time‑scheduled vocal cord polyp resection with monitoring of heart rate (HR), mean blood pressure (MBP) and auditory evoked potential (AEP)‑based A‑line ARX Index (AAI). The Rem concentration was initially 5 ng/ml in the first patient, and the concentration selected for each subsequent patient was calculated from the previous case on the basis of whether or not cardiovascular reactions occurred. The HR, MBP and AAI at baseline, after the induction of anesthesia, and before and after the insertion of a self‑retaining laryngoscope were recorded, with a change >15% recorded as a positive cardiovascular response. The EC50 sequential method was used to calculate the EC50 of Rem for the inhibition of laryngoscope‑induced responses. Cortisol, interleukin‑6 and blood glucose levels before and after laryngoscope insertion were also measured. The target-controlled concentrations for the 20 patients were as follows: 2 cases at 5 ng/ml, 6 cases at 4.2 ng/ml, 6 cases at 3.5 ng/ml, 4 cases at 2.9 ng/ml and 2 cases at 2.4 ng/ml. The EC50 of Rem for the inhibition of laryngoscope-induced responses was 3.5 ng/ml with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 3.47‑3.60 ng/ml. A reasonable dose for inhibiting laryngoscope-induced responses was within the range 2.9‑4.2 ng/ml. In conclusion, Rem exhibited an EC50 of 3.5 ng/ml for the inhibition of laryngoscope-induced cardiovascular responses, with a 95% CI of 3.47‑3.60 ng/ml, and a reasonable dose for the inhibition of such responses was 2.9‑4.2 ng/ml.

View Figures

View References

1	Ghause MS, Singh V, Kumar A, Wahal R, Bhatia VK and Agarwal J: A study of cardiovascular response during laryngoscopy and intubation and their attenuation by ultra short acting b-blocker esmolol. Indian J Anaesth. 46:104–106. 2002.
2	Yumoto E: Laryngeal surgery-vocal cord polyp and anaesthesia. Nihon Jibiinkoka Gakkai Kaiho. 116:34–37. 2013.(In Japanese). View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Yoo HS, Han JH, Park SW and Kim KS: Comparison of surgical condition in endoscopic sinus surgery using remifentanil combined with propofol, sevoflurane, or desflurane. Korean J Anesthesiol. 59:377–382. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Egan TD: Remifentanil: An esterase-metabolized opioid. West J Med. 166:2021997.PubMed/NCBI
5	Myre K, Raeder J, Rostrup M, Buanes T and Stokland O: Catecholamine release during laparoscpic fundoplication with high and low doses of remifentanil. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 47:267–273. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Wu J, Mahmoud M, Schmitt M, Hossain M and Kurth D: Comparison of propofol and dexmedetomedine techniques in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Paediatr Anaesth. 24:813–818. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Sieg A bng-Study-Group, Beck S, Scholl SG, Heil FJ, Gotthardt DN, Stremmel W, Rex DK and Friedrich K: Safety analysis of endoscopist-directed propofol sedation: A prospective, national multicenter study of 24441 patients in German outpatient practices. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 29:517–523. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Khan HA, Umar M, Tul-Bushra H, Nisar G, Bilal M and Umar S: Safety of non-anaesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation in ERCP. Arab J Gastroenterol. 15:32–35. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Minto CF, Schnider TW and Shafer SL: Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil. II. Model application. Anesthesiology. 86:24–33. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Coetzee JF, Glen JB, Wium CA and Boshoff L: Pharmacokinetic model selection for target controlled infusions of propofol. Anesthesiol. 82:1328–1345. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar
11	Minto CF, Schnider TW and Shafer SL: Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil. II. Model application. Anesthesiology. 86:24–33. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Chernik DA, Gillings D, Laine H, Hendler J, Silver JM, Davidson AB, Schwam EM and Siegel JL: Validity and reliability of the Observers Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale: Study with intravenous midazolam. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 10:244–251. 1990.PubMed/NCBI
13	Yang SQ: China Medical Encyclopedia - Medical Statistics (1st). Shanghai Science and Technology Press. Shanghai: 203–204. 2011.
14	Haussmann MF, Vleck CM and Farrar ES: A laboratory exercise to illustrate increased salivary cortisol in response to three stressful conditions using competitive ELISA. Adv Physiol Educ. 31:110–115. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Okholm C, Goetze JP, Svendsen LB and Achiam MP: Inflammatory response in laparoscopic vs. open surgery for gastric cancer. Scand J Gastroenterol. 49:1027–1034. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Wang SZ, Chen Y, Lin HY and Chen LW: Comparison of surgical stress response to laparoscopic and open radical cystectomy. World J Urol. 28:451–455. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Kristiansson M, Saraste L, Soop M, Sundqvist KG and Thörne A: Diminished interleukin 6 and C reactive protein response to laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy. Acta Anesthesiol Scand. 43:146–152. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar
18	Kehlet H: Multimodel approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation. Br J Anaesth. 78:606–617. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Cooper GM, Scoggins AM, Ward ID and Murphy D: Laparoscopy - a stressful procedure. Anaesthesia. 37:266–269. 1982. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Unlügenç H, Itegin M, Ocal I, Ozalevli M, Güler T and Işik G: Remifentanil produces vasorelaxation in isolated rat thoracic aorta strips. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 48:7972004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Doi M, Gajraj RJ, Mantzaridis H and Kenny GN: Prediction of movement at laryngeal mask airway insertion: Comparison of auditory evoked potential index, bispectral index, spectral edge frequency and median frequency. Br J Anaesth. 82:203–207. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Alpiger S, Helbo-Hansen HS, Vach W and Ording H: Efficacy of A-line AEP Monitor as a tool for predicting acceptable tracheal intubation conditions during sevoflurane anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 94:601–606. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Nishiyama T and Hanaoka K: The A-line ARX index may be a more sensitive detector of arousal than the bispectral index during propofol-fentanyl-nitrous oxide anesthesia: A preliminary investigation. Can J Anaesth. 51:539–544. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Kreuer S, Bruhn J, Larsen R, Hoepstein M and Wilhelm W: Comparison of Alaris AEP index and bispectral index during propofol-remifentanil anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 91:336–340. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI