OL Oncology Letters 1792-1074 1792-1082 D.A. Spandidos 10.3892/ol.2016.4394 OL-0-0-4394 Articles Comparison of recovery effect for sufentanil and remifentanil anesthesia with TCI in laparoscopic radical resection during colorectal cancer QIYANYAN YAOXIANGYAN ZHANGBEIBEI DUXIANHUI Department of Anesthesiology, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan 450003, P.R. China Correspondence to: Dr Xianhui Du, Department of Anesthesiology, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, 7 Weiwu Road, Zhengzhou, Henan 450003, P.R. China, E-mail: uvfnnnfuw49@163.com 05 2016 31 03 2016 11 5 3361 3365 29022016 30032016 Copyright: © Qi et al. 2016 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

The aim of the present study was to compare the recovery of sufentanil and remifentanil anesthesia by target-controlled infusion (TCI) in elderly patients with laparoscopic-assisted radical resection of colorectal cancer. The effect of anesthesia on patient stress response and cellular immune function was also observed. Elderly patients (n=192) who underwent laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer between July 2014 and October 2015 were randomly divided into the sufentanil and remifentanil groups (n=96 per group). The two groups used sufentanil- and remifentanil-based anesthesia by TCI. The wake-up time, extubation time, orientation recovery time, vital signs, stress response, distribution of T-cell subsets and incidence of adverse reactions were recorded and compared. The wake-up and extubation times of the remifentanil group were significantly shorter than those of the sufentanil group. The difference of orientation recovery time was not statistically significant. The differences in heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and arterial oxygen saturation following anesthesia and during surgery and those prior to anesthesia of the sufentanil group were not statistically significant. However, those of the remifentanil group significantly improved following anesthesia. The concentrations of glucose, cortisol (COR), and interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein were stable in the sufentanil group, whereas the indices in the remifentanil group had a tendency of increasing during the anesthesia and surgery, and had a longer postoperative recovery time. The decreasing degree of T-cell subsets in the sufentanil group was significantly lower than that in the remifentanil group, and had a short recovery of cellular immunity following surgery. The adverse reactions rate during anesthesia of the remifentanil group was significantly higher than that of the sufentanil group. In conclusion, sufentanil- and remifentanil-based anesthesia with TCI has certain advantages, including improved recovery effect, less stress response, less inhibition of cellular immunity and fewer adverse reactions. It has the potential to become the first choice of anesthetic in the clinic for elderly patients who undergo laparoscopic radical resection for colorectal cancer.

 target controlled infusion sufentanil remifentanil laparoscope colorectal cancer Introduction

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common types of digestive tract tumors affecting 1.23 million individuals per year (9.7% of overall cancers) and is the fourth most common cause of mortality from cancer worldwide (608,000 cases, 8% of overall cancer deaths) (1). Currently, laparoscopic radical resection is the most widely used clinical treatment for colorectal cancer, however, it causes great discomfort for the patient (2). To improve the quality of anesthesia in the laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer is a challenge for the medical field (3,4). Target-controlled infusion (TCI) is a new approach of anesthesia. TCI has the advantages of rapid drug delivery and simple operation (5). It has greatly improved the controllability and safety of clinical anesthesia, and has attracted increasing attention.

Sufentanil and remifentanil are opioid receptor agonists with a great analgesic effect during surgery (6–11). However, there are few comparative studies available on the application of the two agonists in the laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer with TCI. The aim of the present study was to sufentanil and remifentanil anesthesia with TCI in the laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer, and examine their impact on patient stress response and cellular immunity to provide a theoretical reference for clinical anesthesia.

 Patients and methods <sec> <title>General information

A total of 192 elderly patients were selected to perform laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer between July 2014 and October 2015. The patients included 106 males and 86 females, aged 62–81 years, with an average age of 74.3±3.1 years, and a weight of 54–82 kg, with an average weight of 67.6±2.5 kg. The selected cases were confirmed as colorectal cancer following colonoscopy and pathological examination. Patients who had previously used opioid drugs or had an allergy to sufentanil and remifentanil, or had serious damage of the heart, lung, liver, kidney function or other malignant tumor were excluded. The patients were divided randomly into the sufentanil and remifentanil groups (n=96 per group). The differences between the two groups with regard to gender, age and weight were not statistically significant (P>0.05), which was comparable.

 Method

Prior to surgery, electrocardiogram and monitoring of vital signs were implemented in the two groups of patients, and an intramuscular injection of atropine (0.5 mg) and sodium phenobarbital (0.1 g) was performed. After 3 min of breathing with oxygen mask, rapid establishment of venous access and anesthesia induction was performed.

The sufentanil group used TCI sufentanil anesthesia (Langfang branch of Sinopharm Chemical Reagent Co., Ltd.; national medicine permission no. H20123298; Shanghai, China) at a concentration of 0.4 µg/l. Propofol was produced by Xi'an Libang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (national medicine permission no. H20123318; Xi'an, China) at a concentration of 4 mg/l. Mechanical ventilation was carried out when plasma concentration of patients was in a state of equilibrium. During surgery, the concentration of propofol was controlled at 4 mg/l and rocuronium bromide, produced by Zhejiang Xianju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (national medicine permission no. H20123188; Hangzhou, China), was injected continuously. The injection of sufentanil was ceased at the end of surgery.

The remifentanil group used TCI remifentanil anesthesia (Yichang Humanwell Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; national medicine permission no. H20030197; Yichang, China), at a concentration of 4.0 µg/l. The specific surgical process was the same as that of the sufentanil group. The injection of remifentanil was ceased at the end surgery. Temperature-holding nursing was implemented for the two groups. After patients regained their respiratory function and consciousness, catheters were removed and patients were sent to the recovery room.

 Observation index

Observation indices were recorded for wake-up time, extubation time, orientation recovery time and adverse reactions, as well as vital signs [heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2)] prior to (T0) and after (T1) anesthesia, at the end of surgery (T2) and 24 h after surgery (T3), 72 h after surgery (T4). The distribution of the stress response index [cortisol (COR), interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-10, glucose (GLU)] and T-lymphocyte subsets (CD3, CD4, CD8 and CD4/CD8).

 Statistical analysis

SPSS 21.0 software (IBM SPSS, Armonk, NY, USA) was used for data analysis. Measurement data were presented as mean ± standard deviation and differences between the two groups were determined by the t-test. Enumeration data were presented as a percentage and comparisons between groups were made using the χ2 test. P<0.05 was considered to indicate statistically significant results.

 Results <sec> <title>Comparison of the quality of anesthesia recovery in the two groups

The wake-up and extubation times of the remifentanil group were significantly lower than those in the sufentanil group (P<0.01), and the difference of orientation recovery time in the two groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05; Table I).

 Comparison of the changes of vital signs in the two groups

The differences of vital signs (HR, MAP, SpO2) after the anesthesia (T1) and at the end of surgery (T2) were not statistically significant (P>0.05). However, the remifentanil group had obvious changes after anesthesia (T1) and at the end of surgery (T2) in that HR improved, whereas MAP and SpO2 significantly decreased (P<0.05; Table II).

 Comparison of stress response indices in the two groups

The concentration of GLU, COR, IL-6 and C-reactive protein (CRP) of patients in the sufentanil group maintained stability, while the indices in the remifentanil group exhibited an increasing trend during the process of anesthesia and surgery, with a longer recovery following surgery. The differences of indices of GLU, COR, IL-6 and CRP between the two groups in T0 were not statistically significant (P>0.05). However, statistical significance was observed for (P<0.05) in T1, T2, T3, T4 (Table III).

 Distribution of T-cell subsets in the two groups

The degree of reduction of T-lymphocyte subsets in the sufentanil group was lower than that in the remifentanil group, with the sufentanil group having a shorter recovery of cell immune function. The differences of indices of CD3, CD4, CD8, and CD4/CD8 between the two groups in T0 were not statistically significant (P>0.05), whereas, there was statistical significance (P<0.05) for T1, T2, T3, T4 (Table IV).

 Comparison of adverse reactions in the two groups

Adverse reactions rate in the sufentanil group during the wake-up process was significantly lower than that in the remifentanil group (P<0.05; Table V).

 Discussion

Sufentanil is a type of narcotic drug and opioid receptor agonist, and contains citrate as the main pharmacological component (2–4). Sufentanil is easily transferred through the blood-brain barrier with its high lipid solubility, and can bind with plasma protein for a good analgesic effect, with a longer interval for anesthesia (12,13). Refentanil as an opioid agonist is easily hydrolyzed in human tissues and blood, which has characteristics of rapid onset, short duration of anesthesia and no accumulation inside the human body (14).

The findings of the present study have shown that the wake-up and extubation times of the remifentanil group were significantly longer than those in the sufentanil group (P<0.01). The difference in orientation recovery time between two groups had no statistical significance (P>0.05). Sufentanil injection can be ceased at the end of surgery for its brief duration in the body and short biological half-life, which is controllable in the clinic.

Change of vital signs is an important indicator of surgical anesthesia. The present findings showed that the differences of HR, MAP, SpO2 in T1 and T2 were not statistically significant in the sufentanil group compared with those prior to surgery (P>0.05). However, in the remifentanil group those parameters have obviously altered following surgery. HR increased significantly while MAP and SpO2 decreased significantly in T1 and T2 compared with those prior to surgery (P<0.05). Therefore, sufentanil-based anesthesia with TCI maintains perioperative vital signs in a stable condition and hardly affected patient respiratory function and hemodynamics indices.

Radical resection for colorectal cancer leads to stress response in patients (15,16). Stress response is a non-specific defense reaction that occurs in the human body when externally stimulated. Previous findings (2,17,18) have shown that, stress responses initiated from anesthesia and surgery occur during the perioperative period, with a certain impact on recovery of patients following surgery. Serum COR and blood GLU can reflect t the intensity of stress response in the human body and IL-6 and IL-10 are important cytokines that are involved in the inflammatory response and injury repair and reflect the degree of human stress (19).

In the present study, the concentration of GLU, COR, IL-6 and CRP of patients in the sufentanil group maintained stability, whereas this concentration was increased during anesthesia and surgery in the remifentanil group, and the latter group had a longer recovery period following surgery. The differences of indices of GLU, COR, IL-6, and CRP for the two groups in T0 were not statistically significant (P>0.05), but there was significance for T1, T2, T3 and T4 (P<0.05). This result suggested that sufentanil is able to maintain the blood GLU and COR in a stable condition and has much less stress response than remifentanil.

T lymphocytes and their subsets are the main immune active cells in the body's anti-tumor immunity, of which CD3 can effectively recognize the role of antigen, and is expressed on the surface of mature T lymphocytes. CD4 assists human B-cells to further differentiate and produce antibodies, while CD8 inhibits T-cell proliferation. CD4 and CD8 are expressed on the surface of suppressor cells and cytotoxic T lymphocytes (20–22). The degree of immune function disorder is defined by the ratio CD4/CD8. In the present study, the degree of reduction of T-lymphocyte subsets in the sufentanil group was significantly lower than that in the remifentanil group, with a rapid recovery of cellular immune function. The differences of indices of CD3, CD4, CD8, and the CD4/CD8 ratio in T0 exhibited no statistical significance (P>0.05), whereas statistical significance was identified for T1, T2, T3, T4 (P<0.05). Thus, TCI of sufentanil anesthesia for laparoscopic radical resection for colorectal cancer effectively inhibits the cellular immune function, which recovers in a short time after surgery.

The present study analyzed adverse reactions in the process of wake-up and recovery. The results have shown that the incidence of adverse reactions, which include coughing and dysphoria, in the sufentanil group was significantly lower than that in the remifentanil group (P<0.05). Therefore, the TCI of sufentanil anesthesia is safe and reliable with few side effects. Thus, TCI of sufentanil anesthesia maintains stable hemodynamic and respiratory function and causes less stress response, less inhibition of cellular immunity and fewer side effects in its application. It thus has the potential to become the first choice of anesthesic to be used in the clinic for elderly patients who undergo laparoscopic radical resection for colorectal cancer and therefore may be promoted in the clinic.

 References DolatkhahRSomiMHBonyadiMJAsvadiKIFarassatiFDastgiriSColorectal cancer in Iran: Molecular epidemiology and screening strategiesJ Cancer Epidemiol2015643020201510.1155/2015/64302025685149 HuLGPanJHLiJKangFJiangLEffects of different doses of sufentanil and remifentanil combined with propofol in target-controlled infusion on stress reaction in elderly patientsExp Ther Med5807812201323407772 YeganehNRoshaniBLatifiHAlmasiAComparison of target-controlled infusion of sufentanil and remifentanil in blunting hemodynamic response to tracheal intubationJ Inj Violence Res5101107201310.5249/jivr.v5i2.32523416718 LilotMMeuretPBouvetLCarusoLDabouzRDeléat-BessonRRousseletBThouverezBZadamAAllaouchicheBHypobaric spinal anesthesia with ropivacaine plus sufentanil for traumatic femoral neck surgery in the elderly: A dose-response studyAnesth Analg117259264201310.1213/ANE.0b013e31828f29f823592605 LiuSWangBLiSZhouYAnLWangYLvHZhangGFangFLiuZImmune cell populations decrease during craniotomy under general anesthesiaAnesth Analg113572577201121813628 HeyseBProostJHSchumacherPMBouillonTWVereeckeHEEleveldDJLuginbühlMStruysMMSevoflurane remifentanil interaction: Comparison of different response surface modelsAnesthesiology116311323201210.1097/ALN.0b013e318242a2ec22222473 OginoSGalonJFuchsCSDranoffGCancer immunology - analysis of host and tumor factors for personalized medicineNat Rev Clin Oncol8711719201110.1038/nrclinonc.2011.12221826083 Uusitalo-SeppäläRKoskinenPLeinoAPeuravuoriHVahlbergTRintalaEMEarly detection of severe sepsis in the emergency room: Diagnostic value of plasma C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and interleukin-6Scand J Infect Dis43883890201110.3109/00365548.2011.60032521892899 KimJHByunHKimJHAbuse potential of propofol used for sedation in gastric endoscopy and its correlation with subject characteristicsKorean J Anesthesiol65403409201310.4097/kjae.2013.65.5.40324363842 CheungTTPoonRTSynchronous resections of primary colorectal tumor and liver metastasis by laparoscopic approachWorld J Hepatol5298301201323805353 BismuthJDuranCBypass surgery in limb salvage: Inflow proceduresMethodist DeBakey Cardiovasc J96668201310.14797/mdcj-9-2-6623805336 FechnerJIhmsenHSchüttlerJJeleazcovCThe impact of intra-operative sufentanil dosing on post-operative pain, hyperalgesia and morphine consumption after cardiac surgeryEur J Pain17562570201310.1002/j.1532-2149.2012.00211.x22927230 LiXZhangYZhouMXiaQLiWLuQThe effect of small dose sufentanil on emergence agitation in preschool children following sevoflurane anesthesia for elective repair of unilateral inguinal herniaSaudi Med J344045201323299158 JeleazcovCSaariTIIhmsenHSchüttlerJFechnerJChanges in total and unbound concentrations of sufentanil during target controlled infusion for cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypassBr J Anaesth109698706201210.1093/bja/aes25322831891 BidgoliJDelesalleSDe HertSGReilesEVan der LindenPJA randomised trial comparing sufentanil versus remifentanil for laparoscopic gastroplasty in the morbidly obese patientEur J Anaesthesiol28120124201110.1097/EJA.0b013e328340504821088598 LeeJYLimBGParkHYKimNSSufentanil infusion before extubation suppresses coughing on emergence without delaying extubation time and reduces postoperative analgesic requirement without increasing nausea and vomiting after desflurane anesthesiaKorean J Anesthesiol62512517201210.4097/kjae.2012.62.6.51222778885 CabañeroDPuigMMImmediate and delayed remifentanil-induced hypersensitivityAnesth Analg115977978author reply 978–979201210.1213/ANE.0b013e318263ca82 LeeCKimYDKimJNAntihyperalgesic effects of dexmedetomidine on high-dose remifentanil-induced hyperalgesiaKorean J Anesthesiol64301307201310.4097/kjae.2013.64.4.30123646238 Gonzalez-BonoERohlederNHellhammerDHSalvadorAKirschbaumCGlucose but not protein or fat load amplifies the cortisol response to psychosocial stressHorm Behav41328333200210.1006/hbeh.2002.176611971667 YalcinNUzunSTReisliRBorazanHOtelciogluSA comparison of ketamine and paracetamol for preventing remifentanil induced hyperalgesia in patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomyInt J Med Sci9327333201210.7150/ijms.422222745573 TiefenthalerWPehboeckDHammerleEKavakebiPBenzerALung function after total intravenous anaesthesia or balanced anaesthesia with sevofluraneBr J Anaesth106272276201110.1093/bja/aeq32121062790 BiSSDengCHZhouTYGuanZLiLLiHQZhangLPYangLLuWRemifentanil-sevoflurane interaction models of circulatory response to laryngoscopy and circulatory depressionBr J Anaesth110729740201310.1093/bja/aes50423388507

Comparison of the quality of anesthesia recovery in the two groups (min).

Group No. Wake-up time Extubation time Orientation recovery time
Sufentanil 96 17.3±7.7 23.5±2.6 16.4±3.6
Remifentanil 96   8.7±3.4 13.1±1.8 15.5±3.2
P-value <0.01 <0.01 >0.05

Comparison of vital signs in the two groups (n=96).

Group Vital signs T0 T1 T2 T3 T4
Sufentanil HR, min 74±4 75±6a 77±4a 74±5 73±4
Remifentanil 75±3 82±7b 85±4b 74±6 73±5
Sufentanil MAP, mmHg 93±6 91±8a 92±8a 93±6 93±7
Remifentanil 92±5 85±7b 87±6b 92±5 92±6
Sufentanil SpO2 (%) 95±2 94±3a 95±2a 94±6 95±1
Remifentanil 94±1 89±2b 91±3b 94±4 94±2

Compared with T0

P>0.05

P<0.05. HR, heart rate; MAP, mean arterial pressure; SpO2, arterial oxygen saturation.

Stress response indices in the two groups (n=96).

Group Stress response index T0 T1 T2 T3 T4
Sufentanil COR, µg/l 205.71±19.42a 227.55±24.72b 245.23±27.51b 212.46±20.13b 207.58±19.32b
Remifentanil 205.36±21.62 231.68±23.41 256.45±26.15 236.92±23.84 211.37±21.19
Sufentanil IL-6, pg/ml 46.52±3.17a 51.54±4.67b 64.17±5.22b 48.73±4.01b 47.67±3.72b
Remifentanil 47.12±3.24 57.14±5.13 71.76±6.21 57.58±4.51 52.12±4.03
Sufentanil CRP, mg/l 4.35±0.33a 5.21±0.42b 6.12±0.53b 5.37±0.44b 4.82±0.37b
Remifentanil 4.31±0.34 7.87±0.75 9.17±0.67 10.75±1.16 6.54±0.77
Sufentanil GLU, mmol/l 4.58±0.37a 4.75±0.48b 5.04±0.46b 4.51±0.42b 4.47±0.36b
Remifentanil 4.57±0.39 6.15±0.51 8.41±0.76 6.57±0.53 5.36±0.48

Comparison was made in the same period

P>0.05

P<0.05. COR, cortisol; IL, interleukin; CRP, C-reactive protein; GLU, glucose.

Distribution of T lymphocyte subsets in the two groups (n=96).

Group Immunoglobulin T0 T1 T2 T3 T4
Sufentanil CD3 (%) 60.74±5.28a 50.42±4.21b 47.16±3.73b 57.38±4.14b 60.37±5.13b
Remifentanil 60.28±5.14 47.76±4.73 44.22±3.28 50.42±4.76 55.62±5.58
Sufentanil CD4 (%) 40.35±3.09a 37.42±2.84b 31.87±2.11b 33.59±2.83b 39.86±3.08b
Remifentanil 41.46±3.17 31.33±2.36 27.14±1.74 29.22±2.18 33.04±2.26
Sufentanil CD8 (%) 26.15±1.74a 23.19±1.23b 22.27±1.09b 21.96±1.35b 24.67±1.55b
Remifentanil 25.92±1.66 21.62±1.08 19.24±1.73 20.62±1.74 21.74±1.34
Sufentanil CD4/CD8 1.57±0.07a 1.46±0.05b 1.37±0.04b 1.44±0.05b 1.47±0.06b
Remifentanil 1.55±0.06 1.27±0.03 1.13±0.02 1.27±0.04 1.31±0.05

Comparison was made in the same period

P>0.05

P<0.05.

Comparison of adverse reactions in the two groups.

Group No. Coughing Dysphoria Nausea and vomiting Shivering Adverse reactions rate, %
Sufentanil 96   5   3   6   9 25.0
Refentanil 96 12 10 10 15 49.0
P-value <0.05