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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Anesthesia
Published in: Journal of Anesthesia 1/2012

01-02-2012 | Original Article

Recovery of psychomotor function after total intravenous anesthesia with remifentanil–propofol or fentanyl–propofol

Authors: Aki Takayama, Shigeki Yamaguchi, Kazuyoshi Ishikawa, Mio Shinozaki, Yoshiyuki Kimura, Masaru Nagao, Toshimitsu Kitajima

Published in: Journal of Anesthesia | Issue 1/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol combined with remifentanil or fentanyl has commonly been used to achieve general anesthesia. The purpose of this study was to examine recovery of psychomotor function, by use of the Trieger dot test, after TIVA with remifentanil–propofol or with fentanyl–propofol.

Methods

Forty patients were randomly divided into two groups of 20, to receive TIVA with either remifentanil–propofol (group R) or fentanyl–propofol (group F). Anesthesia was induced by intravenous injection of propofol. In group R, remifentanil at 0.3 μg/kg/min was infused continuously during surgery. In group F, 3 μg/kg fentanyl was injected as an initial dose and 1 μg/kg fentanyl was administered intravenously every 30 min during surgery. Psychomotor function, as measured by the Trieger dot test, was evaluated before anesthesia and 30, 60, 90, 120, and 150 min after the end of TIVA.

Results

From assessment of the Trieger dot test, the number of dots missed in group R from 30 to 120 min after the end of TIVA was significantly lower than in group F. The maximum distance of dots missed in group R from 30 to 120 min after the end of TIVA was significantly shorter than in group F. The average distance of dots missed in group R from 30 to 120 min after the end of TIVA was significantly shorter than in group F.

Conclusion

Recovery of psychomotor function in TIVA with remifentanil–propofol is faster than that in TIVA with fentanyl–propofol.
Literature
1.
Eikaas H, Raeder J. Total intravenous anaesthesia techniques for ambulatory surgery. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2009;22:725–9.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Black ML, Hill JL, Zacny JP. Behavioral and physiological effects of remifentanil and alfentanil in healthy volunteers. Anesthesiology. 1999;90:718–26.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Korttila K, Nuotto EJ, Lichtor JL, Östman PL, Apfelbaum J, Rupani G. Clinical recovery and psychomotor function after brief anesthesia with propofol or thiopental. Anesthesiology. 1992;76:676–81.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Dressler I, Fritzsche T, Cortina K, Pragst F, Spies C, Rundshagen I. Psychomotor dysfunction after remifentanil/propofol anaesthesia. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2007;24:347–54.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Gupta A, Kullander M, Ekberg K, Lennmarken C. Assessment of recovery following day-care arthroscopy. A comparison between propofol and isoflurane-based anaesthesia. Anaesthesia. 1995;50:937–42.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Shinozaki M, Usui Y, Yamaguchi S, Okuda Y, Kitajima T. Recovery of psychomotor function after propofol sedation is prolonged in the elderly. Can J Anesth. 2002;49:927–31.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Gutstein HB, Akil H. Opioid analgesics. In: Hardman JG, Limbird LE, editors. Goodman and Gilman’s the pharmacological basis of therapeutics. 10th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2001. p. 596.
8.
Kapila A, Glass PS, Jacobs JR, Muir KT, Hermann DJ. Measured context-sensitive half-times of remifentanil and alfentanil. Anesthesiology. 1995;83:968–75.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Westmoreland CL, Hoke JF, Sebel PS, Hug CC Jr, Muir K. Pharmacokinetics of remifentanil (GI87084B) and its major metabolite (GI90291) in patients undergoing elective inpatient surgery. Anesthesiology. 1993;79:893–903.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Suttner S, Boldt J, Schmidt C, Piper S, Kumle B. Cost analysis of target-controlled infusion-based anesthesia compared with standard anesthesia regimens. Anesth Analg. 1999;88:77–82.PubMed
11.
Lacombe GF, Leake JL, Clokie CM, Haas DA. Comparison of remifentanil with fentanyl for deep sedation in oral surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;64:215–22.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Del Gaudio A, Cirittella P, Perrotta F, Puopolo M, Lauta E, Mastronardi P, De Vivo P. Remifentanil vs. fentanyl with a target controlled propofol infusion in patients undergoing craniotomy for supratentorial lesions. Minerva Anestesiol. 2006;72:309–19.PubMed
13.
Coskun D, Celebi H, Karaca G, Karabiyik L. Remifentanil versus fentanyl compared in a target-controlled infusion of propofol anesthesia: quality of anesthesia and recovery profile. J Anesth. 2010;24:373–9.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Newman MG, Trieger N, Miller JC. Measuring recovery from anesthesia—a simple test. Anesth Analg. 1969;48:136–40.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Larsen B, Seitz A, Larsen R. Recovery of cognitive function after remifentanil–propofol anesthesia: a comparison with desflurane and sevoflurane anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2000;90:168–74.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Wilhelm W, Schlaich N, Harrer J, Kleinschmidt S, Müller M, Larsen R. Recovery and neurological examination after remifentanil-desflurane or fentanyl-desflurane anaesthesia for carotid artery surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2001;86:44–9.CrossRefPubMed
17.
De Witte JL, Alegret C, Sessler DI, Cammu G. Preoperative alprazolam reduces anxiety in ambulatory surgery patients: a comparison with oral midazolam. Anesth Analg. 2002;95:1601–6.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Alhashemi JA, Kaki AM. Anesthesiologist-controlled versus patient-controlled propofol sedation for shockwave lithotripsy. Can J Anesth. 2006;53:449–55.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Veselis RA, Reinsel RA, Feshchenko VA, Wronski M, Dnistrian A, Dutchers S, Wilson R. Impaired memory and behavioral performance with fentanyl at low plasma concentrations. Anesth Analg. 1994;79:952–60.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Mi W, Sakai T, Kudo T, Kudo M, Matsuki A. The interaction between fentanyl and propofol during emergence from anesthesia: monitoring with the EEG-Bispectral index. J Clin Anesth. 2003;15:1037.CrossRef
21.
Yli-Hankala A, Vakkuri A, Annila P, Korttila K. EEG bispectral index monitoring in sevoflurane or propofol anaesthesia: analysis of direct costs and immediate recovery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1999;43:545–9.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Lobo F, Beiras A. Propofol and remifentanil effect-site concentrations estimated by pharmacokinetic simulation and bispectral index monitoring during craniotomy with intraoperative awakening for brain tumor resection. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2007;19:183–9.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Martorano PP, Aloj F, Baietta S, Fiorelli A, Munari M, Paccagnella F, Rosa G, Scafuro M, Zei E, Falzetti G, Pelaia P. Sufentanil-propofol vs remifentanil–propofol during total intravenous anesthesia for neurosurgery. A multicentre study. Minerva Anestesiol. 2008;74:233–43.PubMed
24.
Djian MC, Blanchet B, Pesce F, Sermet A, Disdet M, Vazquez V, Gury C, Roux FX, Raggueneau JL, Coste J, Joly LM. Comparison of the time to extubation after use of remifentanil or sufentanil in combination with propofol as anesthesia in adults undergoing nonemergency intracranial surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Clin Ther. 2006;28:560–8.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Gerlach K, Uhlig T, Hüppe M, Nowak G, Schmitz A, Saager L, Grasteit A, Schmucker P. Remifentanil–propofol versus sufentanil–propofol anaesthesia for supratentorial craniotomy: a randomized trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2003;20:813–20.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Recovery of psychomotor function after total intravenous anesthesia with remifentanil–propofol or fentanyl–propofol
Authors
Aki Takayama
Shigeki Yamaguchi
Kazuyoshi Ishikawa
Mio Shinozaki
Yoshiyuki Kimura
Masaru Nagao
Toshimitsu Kitajima
Publication date
01-02-2012
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
Journal of Anesthesia / Issue 1/2012
Print ISSN: 0913-8668
Electronic ISSN: 1438-8359
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-011-1266-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

Journal of Anesthesia 1/2012 Go to the issue

Clinical Report

Use of bronchial blockers: a retrospective review of 302 cases

Letter to the Editor

Hydrocortisone for refractory hypotension of very low birth weight infant with patent ductus arteriosus: a case report

Clinical Report

Cardiac arrest after spinal anesthesia in a patient with neurally mediated syncope

JA Symposium

Anesthesia and cerebrospinal microcirculation: assessment using cranial- and spinal-window techniques

Clinical Report

Severe post-burn neck contracture release and skin graft harvest using tumescent local anaesthesia as the sole anesthetic technique

Original Article

Prediction of postoperative pain using path analysis in older patients