Remifentanil vs. Meperidine for Patient-Controlled Analgesia During Colonoscopy: A Randomized Double-Blind Trial

被引:27
作者
Fanti, Lorella [1 ]
Massimo, Agostoni [2 ]
Marco, Gemma [2 ]
Giulia, Gambino [2 ]
Antonio, Facciorusso [1 ]
Mario, Guslandi [1 ]
Giorgio, Torri [2 ]
Alberto, Testoni Pier [1 ]
机构
[1] Vita Salute Univ Milano, IRCCS H San Raffaele, Dept Gastroenterol, I-20132 Milan, Italy
[2] Vita Salute Univ Milano, IRCCS H San Raffaele, Dept Anesthesiol, I-20132 Milan, Italy
关键词
MONITORED ANESTHESIA CARE; CONTROLLED SEDATION; RECOVERY SCORE; PROPOFOL; MIDAZOLAM; CHOICE; LABOR;
D O I
10.1038/ajg.2009.53
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
OBJECTIVES: The aim was to compare patients' and endoscopists' satisfaction in terms of efficacy and safety of remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) during colonoscopy with that of a combination of midazolam and meperidine. METHODS: Sixty patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly assigned to two groups. All of the patients received midazolam 0.03 mg/kg intravenously for premedication. In the remifentanil group, a bolus dose of remifentanil was given, and a patient-controlled sedation analgesia (PCSA) pump was set to inject further bolus doses with no "lockout" time. Patients in the meperidine group received a bolus of meperidine and sham PCSA. Non-invasive arterial blood pressure, electrocardiography, and pulse oximetry were monitored throughout the study. The Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation Scale (OAA/S) was performed at baseline, every 5 min during, and after colonoscopy. Assessment of pain and satisfaction with sedoanalgesia was scheduled after colonoscopy and 24-72 h later by a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). The technical difficulty of the examination and the gastroenterologist's satisfaction were assessed similarly. RESULTS: The degree of pain, the level of satisfaction with sedoanalgesia by patients and gastroenterologists, and the degree of difficulty experienced by the endoscopist were not different in the two groups. The time to reach an Aldrete score >= 9 was significantly shorter in the remifentanil group (P < 0.0001); discharge times did not differ between the groups (P = 0.36). There was no difference between the groups regarding the duration of colonoscopy (P = 0.82) and the stability of vital signs. At the end of the procedure, OAA/S was significantly higher in the remifentanil group (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Remifentanil PCA is safe and effective to induce sedoanalgesia during colonoscopy. Further studies should address the optimization of dosing and lock out setting.
引用
收藏
页码:1119 / 1124
页数:6
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]   Can remifentanil be a better choice than propofol for colonoscopy during monitored anesthesia care? [J].
Akcaboy, Z. N. ;
Akcaboy, E. Y. ;
Albayrak, D. ;
Altinoren, B. ;
Dikmen, B. ;
Gogus, N. .
ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2006, 50 (06) :736-741
[2]  
ALDRETE JA, 1970, ANESTH ANAL CURR RES, V49, P924
[3]   THE POSTANESTHESIA RECOVERY SCORE REVISITED [J].
ALDRETE, JA .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ANESTHESIA, 1995, 7 (01) :89-91
[4]   Patient-controlled analgesia for labour using remifentanil: a feasibility study [J].
Blair, JM ;
Hill, DA ;
Fee, JPH .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2001, 87 (03) :415-420
[5]   Can continuous infusion be a better choice than patient-controlled sedation for colonoscopy during monitored anaesthesia care? [J].
Bouvet, L. ;
Chassard, D. ;
Boselli, E. .
ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2007, 51 (03) :382-383
[6]   Remifentanil is an effective alternative to propofol for patient-controlled analgesia during digestive endoscopic procedures [J].
Bouvet, L ;
Allaouchiche, B ;
Duflo, F ;
Debon, R ;
Chassard, D ;
Boselli, E .
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA-JOURNAL CANADIEN D ANESTHESIE, 2004, 51 (02) :122-125
[7]  
CHERNIK DA, 1990, J CLIN PSYCHOPHARM, V10, P244
[8]  
Greilich PE, 2001, ANESTH ANALG, V92, P80
[9]   Patient-controlled anesthesia for colonoscopy using propofol: Results of a pilot study [J].
Heiman, DR ;
Tolliver, BA ;
Weis, FR ;
O'Brien, BL ;
DiPalma, JA .
SOUTHERN MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1998, 91 (06) :560-564
[10]  
Jamieson J, 1999, Curr Opin Anaesthesiol, V12, P417, DOI 10.1097/00001503-199908000-00004