Dose comparison of remifentanil and alfentanil for loss of consciousness

79Citations
Citations of this article
28Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of remifentanil, a potent mu agonist opioid with a rapid onset and offset of effect, as a sole induction agent for loss of consciousness (LOC) and compared it with alfentanil. Methods: Remifentanil and alfentanil were administered intravenously over 2 min in ascending doses (remifentanil 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 15, 20 μg/kg; alfentanil 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, 160, 200 μg/kg) to unpremedicated healthy patients. Patients were observed for rigidity and LOC for 30 s after the end of infusion. If patients had not lost consciousness, 2 mg · kg-1 · min-1 thiopental was administered until LOC was achieved. Arterial blood samples, obtained at specified time intervals, were analyzed for remifentanil and alfentanil whole-blood concentration. Blood pressure and heart rate were also recorded at preset time intervals. Results: Neither drug could reliably produce LOC. With both drugs, there was a dose-dependent decrease in thiopental requirements and a dose-dependent increase in the incidence and severity of rigidity (P < 0.05). The median effective dose (ED50) for LOC with remifentanil was 12 μg/kg, and for alfentanil it was 176 μg/kg. The median effective concentration (EC50; whole-blood concentration) of remifentanil was 53.8 ng/ml and for alfentanil it was 1,012 ng/ml. Minimal hemodynamic changes were observed after either drug was given. Conclusions: Remifentanil is 15 times more potent than alfentanil, based on the ED50 to achieve loss of response to a verbal command and 20 times more potent than alfentanil based on the EC50. Neither opioid is suitable as a sole induction agent.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Jhaveri, R., Joshi, P., Batenhorst, R., Baughman, V., & Glass, P. S. A. (1997). Dose comparison of remifentanil and alfentanil for loss of consciousness. Anesthesiology, 87(2), 253–259. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199708000-00011

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free