Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Anesthesiology
Published in: BMC Anesthesiology 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Effect-site concentration of propofol required for LMA-Supreme™ insertion with and without remifentanil: a randomized controlled trial

Authors: Matilde Zaballos, Emilia Bastida, Salomé Agustí, Maite Portas, Consuelo Jiménez, Maite López-Gil

Published in: BMC Anesthesiology | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

A new supraglottic device, the LMA-Supreme™, has recently become available for clinical use. Information on anaesthetic and co-adjuvant requirements for insertion of the LMA-Supreme™ is limited. The present study aimed to evaluate the optimal effect-site concentration of propofol in 50 % (EC50) of adults necessary for successful insertion of the LMA-Supreme™ and to examine remifentanil’s effect on propofol requirements.

Methods

Fifty-eight elective patients (aged 18–60 years; ASA (American Society Anaesthesiologists) physical status classification I and II) scheduled for day surgery were randomly assigned to one of two groups: propofol with saline or propofol with remifentanil. Anaesthesia was induced by target-controlled infusion according to predetermined effect-site concentrations of propofol and remifentanil (5 ng.mL−1). The EC50 was calculated using Dixon’s up-and-down method. Ten minutes following drug administration, LMA-Supreme™ insertion was attempted without the use of muscle relaxant drugs.

Results

In the propofol + saline group, the EC50 of propofol required for LMA-Supreme™ insertion was 6.32 ± 0.67 μg.mL−1 (95 % CI, 5.69–6.94 μg.mL−1). With the addition of remifentanil at an effect-site concentration of 5 ng.mL−1, the EC50 of propofol required for LMA-Supreme™ insertion was 2.50 ± 0.80 μg.mL−1 (95 % CI, 1.82–3.17 μg.mL−1; p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

The propofol requirement for smooth insertion of the LMA-Supreme™ was 60 % less when remifentanil (5 ng.mL−1) was co-administered.

Clinical trial registration

Literature
1.
The LMA Supreme™. Instruction manual. Maidenhead: Intavent Orthofix Ltd; 2007.
2.
Timmermann A, Cremer S, Eich C, Kazmaier S, Bräuer A, Graf BM, et al. Prospective clinical and fiberoptic evaluation of the Supreme laryngeal mask airway. Anesthesiology. 2009;110:262–5.PubMed
3.
Eschertzhuber S, Brimacombe J, Hohlrieder M, Keller C. The laryngeal mask airway Supreme--a single use laryngeal mask airway with an oesophageal vent. A randomised, cross-over study with the laryngeal mask airway ProSeal in paralysed, anaesthetised patients. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:79–83.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Stroumpos C, Manolaraki M, Paspatis GA. Remifentanil, a different opioid: potential clinical applications and safety aspects. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2010;9:355–64.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Seet E, Rajeev S, Firoz T, Yousaf F, Wong J, Wong DT, et al. Safety and efficacy of laryngeal mask airway Supreme versus laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27:602–7.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Tiefenthaler W, Eschertzhuber S, Brimacombe J, Fricke E, Keller C, Kaufmann M. A randomised, non-crossover study of the GuardianCPV Laryngeal Mask versus the LMA Supreme in paralysed, anaesthetised female patients. Anaesthesia. 2013;68:600–4.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Handa-Tsutsui F, Kodaka M. Propofol concentration requirement for laryngeal mask airway insertion was highest with the ProSeal, next highest with the Fastrach, and lowest with the classic type, with target-controlled infusion. J Clin Anesth. 2005;17:344–7.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Kim MK, Lee JW, Jang DJ, Shin OY, Nam SB. Effect-site concentration of remifentanil for laryngeal mask airway insertion during target-controlled infusion of propofol. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:136–40.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Schnider TW, Minto CF, Gambus PL, Andresen C, Goodale DB, Shafer SL, et al. The influence of method of administration and covariates on the pharmacokinetics of propofol in adult volunteers. Anesthesiology. 1998;88:1170–82.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Minto CF, Schnider TW, Egan TD, Youngs E, Lemmens HJ, Gambus PL, et al. Influence of age and gender on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil. I. Model development. Anesthesiology. 1997;86:10–23.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Muzi M, Robinson BJ, Ebert TJ, O’Brien TJ. Induction of anesthesia and tracheal intubation with sevoflurane in adults. Anesthesiology. 1996;85:536–43.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Keller C, Brimacombe JR, Keller K, Morris R. Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. Br J Anaesth. 1999;82:286–7.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Brimacombe J, Berry A. A proposed fiber-optic scoring system to standardize the assessment of laryngeal mask airway position. Anesth Analg. 1993;76:457.PubMed
15.
De Jong RE, Eger II EI. MAC expanded: AD50 and AD90 values of common inhalation anesthetics in man. Anesthesiology. 1975;42:384–9.CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
Bouillon TW, Bruhn J, Radulescu L, Andresen C, Shafer TJ, Cohane C, et al. Pharmacodynamic interaction between propofol and remifentanil regarding hypnosis, tolerance of laryngoscopy, bispectral index, and electroencephalographic approximate entropy. Anesthesiology. 2004;100:1353–72.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Kodaka M, Okamoto Y, Koyama K, Miyao H. Predicted values of propofol EC50 and sevoflurane concentration for insertion of laryngeal mask ClassicTM and ProSealTM. Br J Anaesth. 2004;92:242–5.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Kodaka M, Handa F, Kawasaki J, Miyao H. Cp50 of propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion using predicted concentrations with and without nitrous oxide. Anaesthesia. 2002;57:956–9.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Richebé P, Rivalan B, Baudouin L, Sesay M, Sztark F, Cros AM, et al. Comparison of the anaesthetic requirement with target-controlled infusion of propofol to insert the laryngeal tube vs. the laryngeal mask. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005;22:858–63.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zaballos M, Bastida E, Jiménez C, Agustí S, López-Gil MT. Predicted end-tidal sevoflurane concentration for insertion of a Laryngeal Mask Supreme: a prospective observational study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2013;30:170–4.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Gill PS, Shah J, Ogilvy A. Midazolam reduces the dose of propofol required for induction of anaesthesia and laryngeal mask airway insertion. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2001;18:166–70.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Baik HJ, Kim YJ, Kim JH. Lidocaine given intravenously improves conditions for laryngeal mask airway insertion during propofol target-controlled infusion. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2009;26:377–81.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Lee MP, Kua JS, Chiu WK. The use of remifentanil to facilitate the insertion of the laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg. 2001;93:359–62.PubMed
25.
Grewal K, Samsoon G. Facilitation of laryngeal mask airway insertion: effects of remifentanil administered before induction with target-controlled propofol infusion. Anaesthesia. 2001;56:897–901.PubMed
26.
Kim SH, Choi EM, Chang CH, Kim HK, Chung MH, Choi YR. Comparison of the effect-site concentrations of remifentanil for Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway (SLIPA) versus laryngeal mask airway SoftSealTM insertion during target-controlled infusion of propofol. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2011;39:611–7.PubMed
27.
Park HJ, Lee JR, Kim CS, Kim SD, Kim HS. Remifentanil halves the EC50 of propofol for successful insertion of the laryngeal mask airway and laryngeal tube in pediatric patients. Anesth Analg. 2007;105:57–61.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Komatsu R, Turan AM, Orhan-Sungur M, McGuire J, Radke OC, Apfel CC. Remifentanil for general anaesthesia: a systematic review. Anaesthesia. 2007;62:1266–80.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Brimacombe JR, editor. Laryngeal mask anesthesia. Principles and practice. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2005.
Metadata
Title
Effect-site concentration of propofol required for LMA-Supreme™ insertion with and without remifentanil: a randomized controlled trial
Authors
Matilde Zaballos
Emilia Bastida
Salomé Agustí
Maite Portas
Consuelo Jiménez
Maite López-Gil
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2253
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-015-0115-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Anesthesiology 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Therapeutic plasma exchange does not reduce vasopressor requirement in severe acute liver failure: a retrospective case series

Research article

Ringer’s lactate, but not hydroxyethyl starch, prolongs the food intolerance time after major abdominal surgery; an open-labelled clinical trial

Research article

Misplacement of left-sided double-lumen tubes into the right mainstem bronchus: incidence, risk factors and blind repositioning techniques

Case report

Generalized seizures and transient contralateral hemiparesis following retrobulbar anesthesia: a case report

Research article

Effects of changes in intraoperative management on recovery from anesthesia: a review of practice improvement initiative

Research article

Effects of propofol versus thiopental on Apgar scores in newborns and peri-operative outcomes of women undergoing emergency cesarean section: a randomized clinical trial