Propofol/remifentanil vs sevoflurane/remifentanil for long lasting surgical procedures: A randomised controlled trial

Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Schwanenweg 21, D-24105, Kiel, Germany.
Anaesthesia (Impact Factor: 3.38). 08/2006; 61(8):752-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2006.04715.x
Source: PubMed


We compared the haemodynamics, emergence and recovery characteristics of total intravenous anaesthesia using propofol/remifentanil with sevoflurane/remifentanil anaesthesia, under bispectral index guidance, in 103 patients undergoing surgical procedures lasting > 3.5 h. Time to tracheal extubation was significantly shorter in the propofol group than in the sevoflurane group (mean (SD) 8.3 (3.5) min vs 10.8 (4.6) min, respectively; p = 0.0024), but further recovery was comparable in both groups. There were no significant differences in haemodynamic parameters, intensity of pain or postoperative nausea and vomiting. During and after anaesthesia of comparable depth for long lasting surgical procedures, both propofol/remifentanil and sevoflurane/remifentanil enable haemodynamic stability and fast emergence. The shorter time to extubation in the propofol group does not offer a relevant clinical advantage.

Full-text preview

Available from:
  • Source
    • "Total intravenous anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil did not reduce the incidence of PONV, although propofol is generally assumed to be antiemetic. Some reports have demonstrated that propofol with opioid did not reduce the incidence of PONV compared to balanced anesthesia with opioid.16,17,18,19 Longer duration of anesthesia was identified as a risk factor for PONV, similar to the previous study.3,20,21,22 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose We evaluated the incidence and risk factors of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients with fentanyl-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) and single antiemetic prophylaxis of 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5 HT3)-receptor antagonist after the general anesthesia. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, incidence and risk factors for PONV were evaluated with fentanyl IV-PCA during postoperative 48 hours after various surgeries. Results Four hundred-forty patients (23%) of 1878 had showed PONV. PCA was discontinued temporarily in 268 patients (14%), mostly due to PONV (88% of 268 patients). In multivariate analysis, female, non-smoker, history of motion sickness or PONV, long duration of anesthesia (>180 min), use of desflurane and intraoperative remifentanil infusion were independent risk factors for PONV. If one, two, three, four, five, or six of these risk factors were present, the incidences of PONV were 18%, 19%, 22%, 31%, 42%, or 50%. Laparoscopic surgery and higher dose of fentanyl were not risk factors for PONV. Conclusion Despite antiemetic prophylaxis with 5 HT3-receptor antagonist, 23% of patients with fentanyl-based IV-PCA after general anesthesia showed PONV. Long duration of anesthesia and use of desflurane were identified as risk factors, in addition to risk factors of Apfel's score (female, non-smoker, history of motion sickness or PONV). Also, intraoperative remifentanil infusion was risk factor independent of postoperative opioid use. As the incidence of PONV was up to 50% according to the number of risk factors, risk-adapted, multimodal or combination therapy should be applied.
    Yonsei Medical Journal 09/2014; 55(5):1430-5. DOI:10.3349/ymj.2014.55.5.1430 · 1.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Opioid supplementation or increased delivery of anesthetic agents instead of N2O has resulted in delayed awareness and recovery [24]. Several investigators found that recovery was more rapid, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was lower, and peroperative hemodynamic stability was better in the propofol group compared to the sevoflurane group [25-27]. A recent study compared the incidence and degree of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients who received general anesthesia with propofol and those with sevoflurane. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of the study was to evaluate the comparative effects of propofol infusion versus sevoflurane for maintenance of anesthesia with respect to hemodynamics, recovery characteristics, nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Forty American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II patients, aged between 22 and 65 years were randomly divided to receive either intravenous anesthesia with propofol (group P) or sevoflurane (group S). Cardiovascular variables, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2), bispectral index (BIS) and train-of-four (TOF) values were recorded at intervals throughout the procedure. Time to spontaneous respiration, eye opening, extubation, obey commands, hand squeezing, Aldrete Score > 9 and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting were recorded. Early recovery times [spontaneous respiration (P = 0.002), eye opening (P = 0.006), extubation (P = 0.013), obey commands (P < 0.05), hand squeezing (P = 0.005)] were significantly longer in group P. The incidence of vomiting was significantly higher in group S (P < 0.05). Hemodynamic parameters, levels of SpO2, ETCO2, and BIS and TOF values were not significantly different between the groups (P > 0.05). The present study which adjusted sevoflurane concentration and propofol infusion rate according to BIS values revealed that maintenance of anesthesia with sevoflurane is associated with faster recovery than anesthesia with propofol. Propofol resulted in a significantly lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Hemodynamic parameters and levels of SpO2 and ETCO2 were comparable between the groups during percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
    Korean journal of anesthesiology 03/2013; 64(3):223-8. DOI:10.4097/kjae.2013.64.3.223
  • Source
    • "Most studies using BIS monitoring, like the study by Hö cker et al. regarding patients undergoing a variety of long-lasting procedures, tend to titrate intravenous or inhalation agents to maintain BIS values within certain limits, usually between 40 and 60 [10]. In the present study, our goal was BIS between 40 and 50. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Spondylodesis is a procedure aiming at providing stability in one or more spinal segments. The aim of our study was to compare sevoflurane and propofol as induction and maintenance agents, focusing on hemodynamic stability, recovery characteristics, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and pain intensity. Materials and methods: Seventy patients, with a physical status according to American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II, 50-72 y old, undergoing selective lumbar spondylodesis were enrolled. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between groups in overall mean hemodynamic parameters. No differences in fluid administration and vasoactive substances used were noted. Postoperatively, there was a significant difference in overall mean visual analog score at rest and at cough, with the sevoflurane group showing lower values. No differences in the incidence of nausea, vomiting, shivering, postoperative sedation scores, and orientation to place were revealed. Orientation to time exhibited a statistically significant difference at the time just after transfer to the post-anesthesia care unit, where more patients of the sevoflurane group seemed to be well oriented. Conclusions: Sevoflurane and propofol anesthesia for lumbar spondylodesis surgery provide safe and comparable results.
    Journal of Surgical Research 10/2012; 179(1). DOI:10.1016/j.jss.2012.09.038 · 1.94 Impact Factor
Show more