Comparison of remifentanil versus regional anaesthesia in children anaesthetised with isoflurane/nitrous oxide

25Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

We compared the efficacy and safety of a remifentanil (0.25 χ.kg-1.min-1)-based balanced anaesthetic technique with a bupivacaine-based regional anaesthetics technique in an open label, multicentre study in 271 ASA physical status 1 or 2 children aged 1-12 years. Subjects requiring major intra-abdominal, urological or orthopaedic surgery were randomly allocated to receive either intravenous remifentanil (group R; n = 185) or epidural bupivacaine (group B; n = 86) with isoflurane/nitrous oxide for their anaesthesia. The majority of children in both groups (85% in group R, 78% in group B) showed no defined response to skin incision, and although the mean increase in systolic blood pressure (+11 mmHg) was significantly greater in group R than in group B, this change did not represent a serious haemodynamic disturbance. More children in group R (31%) required interventions to treat hypotension and/or bradycardia than those in group B (12%), but these were easily managed by administration of fluids or anticholinergic drugs. Adverse events, mainly nausea and/or vomiting, occurred in 45% of group R and 42% of group B (NS). The adverse event profile or remifentanil in this study was typical of a potent μ-opioid receptor agonist. Remifentanil was as effective as epidural or caudal block in providing analgesia and suppressing physiological responses to surgical stimuli in children aged between 1 and 12 years undergoing major abdominal, urological, or orthopaedic surgery under isoflurane/nitrous oxide anaesthesia.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Prys-Roberts, C., Lerman, J., Murat, I., Taivainen, T., Lopez, T., Lejus, C., … Kirkham, A. J. T. (2000). Comparison of remifentanil versus regional anaesthesia in children anaesthetised with isoflurane/nitrous oxide. Anaesthesia, 55(9), 870–876. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2044.2000.01607.x

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