Does functional ability in the postoperative period differ between remifentanil- and fentanyl-based anesthesia?

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare patients' functional ability in the 24-hour postoperative period following a remifentanil compared to a hypnotic-fentanyl-treated anesthesia regimen using a 24-Hour Functional Ability Questionnaire. DESIGN: Prospective, 1:1 single-blind, randomized, controlled effectiveness study. SETTING: Multicenter study including 156 hospitals and ambulatory surgery facilities. PATIENTS: 2438 patients (1496 outpatients and 942 inpatients) 18 years of age or older, scheduled for elective surgeries under general endotracheal anesthesia, with an expected duration of unconsciousness of > or =30 minutes. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either intravenous remifentanil (0.5 microg/kg/min for induction and intubation; with the infusion rate decreased to 0.25 microg/kg/min after intubation) or fentanyl (administered according to anesthesiologists' usual practice) as the opioid during surgery. Concomitant hypnotic drugs were propofol and/or isoflurane (with or without nitrous oxide) titrated according to protocol. Transition analgesia with either morphine or fentanyl was given in the remifentanil patients and at the discretion of the anesthesiologists in the fentanyl patients. MEASUREMENTS: A validated set of measurements of functional ability, rather than more traditional clinical psychological methods, to compare the recovery of patients from remifentanil- and fentanyl-treated anesthetic regimens up to 24 hours after surgery. MAIN RESULTS: Remifentanil was statistically superior to fentanyl for the four functional assessments evaluated: walking without dizziness, thinking clearly, concentration, and communicating effectively. These differences reflect events occurring within the first 24 hours after anesthesia and surgery. CONCLUSIONS: A remifentanil-treated anesthetic demonstrated earlier return to some functions than a fentanyl-treated technique. Although functional assessment is a field that is still in its infancy, a questionnaire to assess functional ability during the 24 hours after anesthesia may provide more practical information about anesthetic recovery than previously used, traditional psychomotor evaluations.

Hemodynamics and emergence profile of remifentanil versus fentanyl prospectively compared in a large population of surgical patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the responses to, and hemodynamics associated with surgical stress, recovery profiles, and anesthesiologists' satisfaction following balanced general anesthesia using either remifentanil or fentanyl in a large-scale population. DESIGN: Prospective, 1:1 single blind, randomized, controlled effectiveness study in which patients received either remifentanil or fentanyl in combination with a hypnotic-based anesthesia regimen of either isoflurane or propofol. SETTING: Multicenter study including 156 hospitals and ambulatory surgery facilities. PATIENTS: 2,438 patients (1,496 outpatients and 942 inpatients), 18 years of age or older, scheduled for elective surgeries under general endotracheal anesthesia, with an expected duration of unconsciousness > or =30 minutes. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either intravenous (IV) remifentanil (0.5 microg/kg/min for induction and intubation, with the infusion rate decreased to 0.25 microg/kg/min after intubation) or IV fentanyl (administered according to anesthesiologists' usual practice) as the opioid during surgery. Concomitant hypnotic drugs were either propofol and/or isoflurane (with or without nitrous oxide) titrated according to protocol. Transition analgesia with either morphine or fentanyl was given to the remifentanil patients and, at the anesthesiologists' discretion, in the fentanyl patients. MEASUREMENTS: Vital signs, adverse events, and emergence profiles were assessed and recorded. Recovery profile was assessed by recording time spent in the postanesthesia care unit and step-down recovery unit, number and timing of adverse events, timing and dosage of rescue medications, and time to eligibility for discharge (to home or to hospital room). Anesthesiologists' satisfaction with the anesthetic regimen was assessed at the end of surgery. MAIN RESULTS: Remifentanil-treated patients exhibited lower systolic and diastolic blood pressures (by 10-15 mmHg) and lower heart rates (by 10-15 bpm) intraoperatively compared to the fentanyl-treated patients. This difference promptly disappeared on emergence. Remifentanil-treated patients responded to verbal command, left the operating room, and (for outpatients) were discharged home sooner than fentanyl-treated patients. Anesthesiologists rated the predictability of response to intraoperative titration, assessment of hemodynamic profiles, and the quality of anesthesia higher in the remifentanil-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms previous observations on the hemodynamic properties associated with remifentanil and extends these to a wider context than previously reported. These characteristics provide clinicians with an alternative in opioid-based anesthesia.

A placebo-controlled comparison of the effects on sexual functioning of bupropion sustained release and fluoxetine.

BACKGROUND: Many antidepressants are associated with sexual dysfunction, a side effect that may lead to patients' dissatisfaction and noncompliance with treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and effects on sexual functioning of bupropion sustained release (bupropion SR) and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor fluoxetine. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study, patients with recurrent major depression were treated with bupropion SR 150 to 400 mg/d, fluoxetine 20 to 60 mg/d, or placebo for up to 8 weeks. Depression and sexual-functioning status were assessed by site-specific trained investigators at weekly clinic visits; tolerability was assessed primarily by monitoring adverse events. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-six patients participated in the study, 150 receiving bupropion SR, 154 fluoxetine, and 152 placebo. The majority of patients in each group completed the study (63% each, bupropion SR [n = 94] and fluoxetine [n = 97]; 67%, placebo [n = 102]). Bupropion SR and fluoxetine were similarly effective in the treatment of depressive symptoms. Beginning at week 2 and continuing throughout the study, significantly more fluoxetine-treated patients experienced orgasm dysfunction than did patients receiving bupropion SR or placebo (P < 0.001); similar results were seen in patients defined as clinical responders (> or =50% decrease from baseline in 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D] total score) (P < 0.001) and in those experiencing remission of depression (HAM-D total score <8) (P < 0.05). At various time points, worsened sexual functioning, sexual desire disorder, sexual arousal disorder, and dissatisfaction with sexual functioning in those satistied at baseline were more frequently associated with fluoxetine treatment than with bupropion SR or placebo. Both active treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Bupropion SR and fluoxetine were similarly effective and well tolerated in the treatment of depression. Fluoxetine, however, was more frequently associated with sexual dysfunction compared with bupropion SR. Bupropion SR may be an appropriate initial choice for the treatment of depression in patients concerned about sexual functioning.

Late-term smoking cessation despite initial failure: an evaluation of bupropion sustained release, nicotine patch, combination therapy, and placebo.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of long-term use of bupropion sustained release (SR), the nicotine patch, and the combination of these 2 treatments in patients who initially failed treatment. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial in 893 smokers. Patients were randomly assigned to 9 weeks of treatment with placebo (n = 160), bupropion SR (n = 244), nicotine patch (n = 244), or a combination of nicotine patch and bupropion SR (n = 245). The study was originally designed with a follow-up period of 52 weeks. In this analysis, short-term success was defined as smoking cessation after 14 or 21 days of therapy and long-term success was defined as smoking cessation after >21 days of therapy. Patients who did not achieve short-term success were evaluated for long-term success at week 9 (end of treatment), 6 months, and 1 year after the start of the study. RESULTS: The mean age of the smokers was 44 years. The majority (93%) of patients were white, and 52% were female. The study subjects smoked an average of 27 cigarettes per day. Among the 467 patients who initially failed treatment in the first 3 weeks, treatment with bupropion SR alone and in combination with the nicotine patch produced significant increases in successful smoking cessation rates from weeks 4 to 9 (19% bupropion SR or combination, 7% nicotine patch, 7% placebo), at month 6 (11% bupropion SR, 13% combination, 2% nicotine patch, 3% placebo), and at month 12 (10% bupropion SR, 7% combination, 2% nicotine patch, 1% placebo) (P < 0.05 for bupropion SR and combination vs nicotine patch or placebo). CONCLUSION: Among patients who initially failed treatment, continued therapy with bupropion SR, either alone or in combination with the nicotine patch, resulted in significantly higher short- and long-term smoking cessation rates than treatment with the nicotine patch alone or placebo.

Bupropion SR as an aid to smoking cessation in smokers treated previously with bupropion: a randomized placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Many persons who attempt to quit smoking have made previous unsuccessful attempts to quit with pharmacologic aids. An understanding of the impact of these previous attempts to quit is vital for selecting medications that may be more successful in a future attempt to quit. In particular, the effect of repeated use of bupropion SR (Zyban; INN, amfebutamone) on abstinence rates has not been studied previously. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 450 smokers who had previously used bupropion in a smoking cessation attempt. The study consisted of a screening phase, a 12-week treatment phase, and a follow-up at month 6. Participants made regular clinic visits throughout the treatment phase during which they received brief counseling sessions to encourage abstinence from smoking. The primary end point was continuous abstinence from smoking from weeks 4 through 7. Secondary efficacy end points were examined throughout the treatment phase and at follow-up after 6 months. RESULTS: In participants receiving bupropion SR, 27% (61 of 226) remained abstinent throughout the period from weeks 4 through 7 compared with 5% (11 of 224) of participants receiving placebo (P <.001). Significantly (P <.001) more participants who received bupropion SR during the treatment phase remained continuously abstinent from the start of week 4 through month 6 (27 of 226; 12%) compared with participants who received placebo (5 of 224; 2%). Eleven participants receiving placebo (5%) and 19 participants receiving bupropion SR (8%) stopped taking the study medication because of an adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Bupropion SR is an effective medication for retreatment of smokers who have used bupropion SR previously.

Smoking cessation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in more than 80% of cases. Our aim was to investigate the effect of sustained-release bupropion (amfebutamone) (SR) in promoting abstinence from smoking in patients with COPD. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial 404 individuals with mild or moderate COPD who smoked 15 or more cigarettes per day, were assigned bupropion SR (150 mg twice daily) or placebo for 12 weeks. All patients received smoking cessation counselling. Study medication was taken for 1 week before patients attempted to stop smoking. The primary efficacy endpoint was the complete and continuous abstinence from smoking from the beginning of week 4 to the end of week 7. Participants were followed up at month 6. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: All patients were chronic smokers with a smoking history of about 51 pack-years. Continuous smoking abstinence rates from week 4 to 7 were significantly higher in participants receiving bupropion SR than in those receiving placebo (28% [57/204] vs 16% [32/200], p=0.003). Continuous abstinence rates from weeks 4 to 12 (18% [36/204] vs 10% [20/200]) and weeks 4 to 26 (16% [32/204] vs 9% [18/200]) were also higher in participants receiving bupropion SR than in those taking placebo (p<0.05). Furthermore, symptoms of tobacco craving and withdrawal were attenuated in those receiving bupropion SR. Seven individuals discontinued study medication because of adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Bupropion SRis a well-tolerated and effective aid to smoking cessation in people with mild to moderate COPD.

Effect of nonnicotine pharmacotherapy on smoking behavior.

Smoking-related disease is the single biggest preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, yet approximately 25% of Americans continue to smoke. Various dosage forms of nicotine replacement therapy increase smoking quit rates relative to placebo, but they generally do not result in 1-year quit rates of over 20%. To increase these rates, a number of nonnicotine agents have been investigated. Drugs that modulate noradrenergic neurotransmission (bupropion, nortriptyline, moclobemide) are more effective than those affecting serotonin (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, buspirone, ondansetron) or other neurotransmitters.

Is there a learning curve associated with the use of remifentanil?

UNLABELLED: This study prospectively determined whether there was a learning curve with the use of remifentanil, as indicated by decreased hemodynamic variability, improved recovery profile, and decreased incidence of opioid-related adverse events with increasing experience. Patients undergoing diverse surgical procedures (outpatient [n = 1340] and inpatient [n = 560]) were enrolled by investigators (n = 190) who had no previous experience with remifentanil use. Each investigator enrolled 10 patients. A standardized protocol for administration of remifentanil was used. Data were analyzed to determine differences between the first three patients and the last three patients enrolled for each anesthesiologist in the study. There were no differences in hemodynamic variables between the first triad and the last triad in either outpatients or inpatients. Requirements for hypnotic drugs and the doses of remifentanil used were also similar between groups. Analgesic medications administered at the end of surgery and in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) were similar between groups, except that the last triad in the outpatient group received smaller doses of fentanyl compared with the first triad. Times to response to verbal command, tracheal extubation, and operating room discharge did not differ between groups. However, patients in the last triad undergoing outpatient surgery had shorter times to eligibility for PACU discharge, but times to eligibility for discharge home did not differ. The overall incidence of all adverse events (i.e., hypotension, hypertension, muscle rigidity, respiratory depression, apnea, nausea, and vomiting) was less in the last triad as compared with the first triad. When analyzed separately, only the incidence of vomiting (in the outpatient group) was decreased in the last triad as compared with the first triad. This study suggests that there is a learning curve that aids reduction of minor adverse effects associated with the use of analgesic medications administered at the end of surgery in outpatients, which might have reduced the incidence of postoperative vomiting and the duration of PACU stay. IMPLICATIONS: This study demonstrated that anesthesiologists rapidly acquire the ability to use remifentanil with limited experience. However, there is a learning curve that aids reduction of minor adverse effects associated with the use of analgesic medications administered at the end of surgery in outpatients, which might have reduced the incidence of postoperative vomiting and the duration of postanesthesia care unit stay.

Assessing a tool to measure patient functional ability after outpatient surgery.

UNLABELLED: The "24-Hour Functional Ability Questionnaire" (24hFAQ) was developed to measure final recovery and satisfaction 24 h after surgery. We used structured interviews preoperatively to measure baseline patient concerns, and up to 24 h after discharge, to assess patient function and satisfaction. The primary objective was to assess the validity of the newly developed 24hFAQ in the postoperative outpatient setting. The criteria assessed were 1) CONTENT: comparison with expert opinion and patients' views and response frequency distributions for asymptotes and irrelevance, 2) Construct: contribution of cognitive, physical, and satisfaction domains to postoperative functional ability, 3) Discrimination: comparing mean clinical end points with patient satisfaction, and 4) Criterion (predictive) validity: testing that related constructs are best correlated. CONTENT validity was supported by the appropriate frequency distribution of subject responses, by the lack of floor or ceiling effects, and by <2% of responses indicating irrelevance. Construct validity was supported by moderate-to-strong positive interitem correlations within the cognitive and physical domains as predicted a priori. Discriminant validity support was mixed: key symptoms were associated with adverse patient satisfaction, but operating room and postanesthesia care unit residence times were unrelated. Criterion validity was supported by the finding that preoperative concern with key symptoms was independent of postoperative outcomes. The validity assessment presented was the first assessment of the measurement capability of the 24hFAQ in an outpatient postoperative population. These results provide overall support for the validity of the 24hFAQ for use in outpatient populations. IMPLICATIONS: This study assessed the validity of a novel functional ability questionnaire that measured functional status after recovery from anesthesia and satisfaction 24 h after outpatient surgery. The content, construct, discriminant, and criterion (predictive) validities demonstrated the utility of this assessment instrument in the outpatient setting.

A comparison of remifentanil and fentanyl in patients undergoing surgery for intracranial mass lesions.

UNLABELLED: We compared the effects of remifentanil versus fentanyl during surgery for intracranial space-occupying lesions. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remifentanil (0.5 microg. kg(-1). min(-1) IV during the induction of anesthesia reduced to 0.25 microg. kg(-1). min(-1) after endotracheal intubation; n = 49) or fentanyl (dose per usual practice of the anesthesiologist; n = 54). Anesthesia maintenance doses of isoflurane, nitrous oxide, and opioid were at the anesthesiologist's discretion for both groups. There were no differences between opioid groups for the frequency of responses (hemodynamic, movement, and tearing) to intubation, pinhead holder placement, skin incision, or closure of the surgical wound. Adverse event frequencies were similar between groups. Times to follow verbal commands (P < 0.001) and tracheal extubation (P = 0. 04) were more rapid for remifentanil. The percentage of patients with a normal recovery score (were alert or arousable to quiet voice, were oriented, were able to follow commands, had motor function unchanged from their preoperative evaluation, were not agitated, and had modified Aldrete Scores of 9-10) at 10 min after surgery was more for remifentanil (45% vs 18%; P = 0.005). By 20 min, no difference between groups existed (P = 0.27). Anesthesiologists used more isoflurane in the fentanyl group (4.22 vs 1.93 minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration hours). Neurosurgeons, blinded to treatment group, favored the use of remifentanil. Similar frequencies of light anesthesia responses and other adverse events suggest that intraoperative depths of anesthesia were similar in the two groups. Under these conditions, emergence was more rapid with remifentanil. This is consistent with the necessity for less isoflurane use in the remifentanil group and the intrinsic rapid clearance of this opioid. IMPLICATIONS: Patients given remifentanil-based anesthesia for craniotomy had faster recovery times from anesthesia than did those given fentanyl-based anesthesia.

Remifentanil versus remifentanil/midazolam for ambulatory surgery during monitored anesthesia care.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to define the appropriate dose of remifentanil hydrochloride alone or combined with midazolam to provide satisfactory comfort and maintain adequate respiration for a monitored anesthesia care setting. METHODS: One hundred fifty-nine patients scheduled for outpatient surgery participated in this multicenter, double-blind study. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: remifentanil, 1 microgram/kg, given over 30 s followed by a continuous infusion of 0.1 microgram.kg-1.min-1 (remifentanil), remifentanil, 0.5 microgram/kg, given over 30 s followed by a continuous infusion of 0.05 microgram.kg-1.min-1 (remifentanil+midazolam). Five minutes after the start of the infusion, patients received a loading dose of saline placebo (remifentanil) or midazolam, 1 mg, (remifentanil+midazolam). If patients were not oversedated, a second dose of placebo or midazolam, 1 mg, was given. Remifentanil was titrated (in increments of 50% from the initial rate) to limit patient discomfort or pain intraoperatively, and the infusion was terminated at the completion of skin closure. RESULTS: At the time of the local anesthetic, most patients in the remifentanil and remifentanil+midazolam groups experienced no pain (66% and 60%, respectively) and no discomfort (66% and 65%, respectively). The final mean (+/-SD) remifentanil infusion rates were 0.12 +/- 0.05 microgram.kg-1.min-1 (remifentanil) and 0.07 +/- 0.03 microgram.kg-1.min-1 (remifentanil+midazolam). Fewer patients in the remifentanil+midazolam group experienced nauses compared with the remifentanil group (16% vs. 36%, respectively; P < 0.05). Four patients (5%) in the remifentanil group and two patients (2%) in the remifentanil+midazolam group experienced brief periods of oxygen desaturation (SpO2 < 90%) and hypoventilation (< 8 breaths/ min). CONCLUSIONS: Remifentanil alone or combined with midazolam provided adequate analgesia and maintained adequate respiration at the doses reported. The low dose of remifentanil combined with 2 mg midazolam, compared with remifentanil alone, resulted in fewer side effects, slightly greater sedation, and less anxiety.

Remifentanil compared with alfentanil for ambulatory surgery using total intravenous anesthesia. The Remifentanil/Alfentanil Outpatient TIVA Group.

The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that using a 1:4 ratio of remifentanil to alfentanil, a remifentanil infusion would provide better suppression of intraoperative responses and comparable recovery profiles after ambulatory laparoscopic surgery than an alfentanil infusion, as part of total intravenous anesthesia. Two hundred ASA physical status I, II, or III adult patients participated in this multicenter, double-blind, parallel group study. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to either the remifentanil-propofol or alfentanil-propofol regimens. The anesthesia sequence was propofol (2 mg/kg intravenously [IV] followed by 150 micrograms.kg-1.min-1), and either remifentanil (1 microgram/kg IV followed by 0.5 microgram.kg-1.min-1)of alfentanil (20 micrograms/kg IV followed by 2 micrograms.kg-1.min-1), and vecuronium. After trocar insertion, infusion rates were decreased (propofol to 75 micrograms.kg-1.min-1; remifentanil to 0.25 microgram.kg-1.min-1; alfentanil to 1 microgram.kg-1.min-1). Alfentanil and propofol were discontinued at 10 and 5 min, respectively, before the anticipated end of surgery (last surgical suture); remifentanil was discontinued at the end of surgery. Recovery times were calculated from the end of surgery. The median duration of surgery was similar between groups (39 min for remifentanil versus 34 min for alfentanil). A smaller proportion of remifentanil patients than alfentanil patients had any intraoperative responses (53% vs 71%, P = 0.029), had responses to trocar insertion (11% vs 32%, P < 0.001), or required dosage adjustments during maintenance (24% vs 41%, P < 0.05). Early awakening times were similar. Remifentanil patients qualified for Phase 1 discharge later and were given postoperative analgesics sooner than alfentanil patients (P < 0.05). Actual discharge times from the ambulatory center were similar between groups (174 min for remifentanil versus 204 min for alfentanil) (P = 0.06). In conclusion, remifentanil can be used for maintenance of anesthesia in a 1:4 ratio compared with alfentanil, for total IV anesthesia in ambulatory surgery. This dose of remifentanil provides more effective suppression of intraoperative responses and does not result in prolonged awakening.

A multicenter evaluation of total intravenous anesthesia with remifentanil and propofol for elective inpatient surgery.

Remifentanil is a mu-opioid receptor agonist with a context sensitive half-time of 3 min and an elimination half-life < or = 10 min. This study sought to evaluate the efficacy of remifentanil and propofol total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) in 161 patients undergoing inpatient surgery. Remifentanil 1 microgram/kg was given intravenously (i.v.) followed by one of two randomized infusion rates: small dose (0.5 micrograms.kg-1.min-1) or large dose (1 microgram.kg-1.min-1). Propofol (0.5-1.0 mg/kg i.v. bolus and 75 micrograms.kg-1.min-1 infusion) and vecuronium were also given. Remifentanil infusions were decreased by 50% after tracheal intubation. End points included responses (hypertension, tachycardia, and somatic responses) to tracheal intubation and surgery. More patients in the small-dose than in the large-dose group responded to tracheal intubation with hypertension and/or tachycardia (25% vs 6%; P = 0.003) but there were no other differences between groups in intraoperative responses. Recovery from anesthesia was within 3-7 min in both groups. The most frequent adverse events were hypotension (systolic blood pressure [BP] < 80 mm Hg or mean BP < 60 mm Hg) during anesthesia induction (10% small-dose versus 15% large-dose group; P = not significant [NS]) and hypotension (27% small-dose versus 30% large-dose group; P = NS), and bradycardia (7% small-dose versus 19% large-dose group; P = NS) during maintenance. In conclusion, when combined with propofol 75 micrograms.kg-1.min-1, remifentanil 1 microgram/kg i.v. as a bolus followed by an infusion of 1.0 microgram.kg-1.min-1 effectively controls responses to tracheal intubation. After tracheal intubation, remifentanil 0.25-4.0 micrograms.kg-1.min-1 effectively controlled intraoperative responses while allowing for rapid emergence from anesthesia.

Intracranial pressure and hemodynamic effects of remifentanil versus alfentanil in patients undergoing supratentorial craniotomy.

Remifentanil hydrochloride is an ultra-short-acting esterase metabolized mu-opioid receptor agonist. The purpose of this study was to provide preliminary information regarding the effects of this drug on intracranial pressure (ICP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) in patients scheduled for craniotomy. Twenty-six patients undergoing excision of supratentorial space-occupying lesions were anesthetized with 0.3-0.8 vol% isoflurane in a 2:1 mixture of nitrous oxide:oxygen. Ventilation was adjusted to provide a Paco2 of < 30 mm Hg. After the first burr hole was drilled, patients (n = 5-6 per group) were administered an intravenous infusion of study drug (placebo, remifentanil 0.5 micrograms/kg or 1.0 micrograms/kg, or alfentanil 10 micrograms/kg or 20 micrograms/kg) over 1 min. Epidural ICP and MAP values were recorded at baseline, at completion of infusion, and every minute for the next 10 min. Blood study drug concentrations were measured immediately after completion of infusion. Neither opioid caused a significant increase in ICP. Both drugs were associated with a dose-dependent decrease in MAP. Remifentanil was 31 times more potent than alfentanil for effects on MAP. We conclude that remifentanil produces similar cerebral perfusion pressure effects as does alfentanil.

Initial clinical experience with remifentanil, a new opioid metabolized by esterases.

Remifentanil is a new, esterase-metabolized opioid for anesthesia. Nonspecific esterases terminate the drug effect, with a context-sensitive half-time which plateaus at 3-4 min. This dose-ranging pilot study was designed to estimate the dose requirement of remifentanil for abolition of the responses to skin incision and intraoperative stimuli, and to determine the speed of recovery. Fifty-one unpremedicated patients took part at two centers. Anesthesia was induced with propofol, 67% nitrous oxide, and vecuronium. Remifentanil was then given (1 microgram/kg, plus an infusion of 0.0125-1.0 micrograms.kg-1.min-1). Responses were defined as: > 15% increase in systolic blood pressure or > 20% increase in heart rate, tearing, sweating, movement, or coughing. Responses to incision or surgery were treated with 0.5 micrograms/kg remifentanil boluses and a 50% increase in infusion rate, which could be done twice. Subsequent responses were treated with propofol or isoflurane. Remifentanil and nitrous oxide administration were terminated after the incision was closed. ED50 for response to skin incision varied between the two study sites (0.020 and 0.087 microgram.kg-1.min-1). ED50 for response to all surgical stimuli was 0.52 microgram.kg-1.min-1. At 0.3 microgram.kg-1.min-1 or more, only 3 of 21 patients required isoflurane. Recovery was not longer in patients receiving larger doses to spontaneous ventilation (2.5-4.6 min), tracheal extubation (4.2-7.0 min), and response to verbal command (3.0-4.6 min). Postoperative pain was reported in most patients (92%) at a median time of 21 min. We conclude that remifentanil was effective and well tolerated as a component of nitrous oxide-opioid-relaxant anesthesia.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Oral sumatriptan for the long-term treatment of migraine: clinical findings.

This double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of the acute treatment of migraine investigated the efficacy and tolerability of oral sumatriptan 100 mg (Imitrex) administered for up to nine attacks compared with placebo administered for up to three attacks. Patients were randomized to receive oral sumatriptan 100 mg or placebo on an outpatient basis in a 3:1 ratio for three four-attack blocks. Headache relief 4 hours postdose was observed in 59 to 65% of patients after sumatriptan treatment compared with 18 to 23% of patients after placebo treatment across three four-attack blocks (p < 0.005). For each block, oral sumatriptan 100 mg was also significantly more effective than placebo at relieving clinical disability and nausea and vomiting. Efficacy on all these measures was consistently maintained with repeated administration. Oral sumatriptan 100 mg was well tolerated, and repeated administration did not alter the pattern or severity of adverse events. These data demonstrate that the efficacy and tolerability of oral sumatriptan 100 mg was consistently maintained with repeated administration for up to nine separate migraine attacks.

Venous irritation related to intravenous administration of phenytoin versus fosphenytoin.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the frequency, severity, and time course of venous irritation after administration of a single intravenous dose of phenytoin with an equimolar dose of fosphenytoin, a water-soluble phenytoin prodrug. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, two-period, crossover study. SETTING: University hospital clinical research unit. PATIENTS: Twelve healthy volunteers within 15% of ideal body weight and with no clinically significant abnormalities on physical examination, medical history, or laboratory assessment. INTERVENTIONS: Volunteers randomly received a 30-minute infusion of phenytoin sodium 250 mg (250 mg/5 ml) or an equimolar dose of fosphenytoin 375 mg (375 mg/5 ml). Subjects returned for the crossover treatment 14-21 days later. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Subjects assessed venous irritation (pain, burning, itching), and investigators evaluated phlebitis (erythema, swelling, tenderness), induration, exudation, and cording. Phenytoin was associated with a significantly higher degree of pain at the infusion site in all subjects and a significant degree of phlebitis in eight subjects (p < 0.05); cording occurred in six subjects. The time course of phenytoin-induced phlebitis was bimodal. Erythema and tenderness were prominent at the end of the infusion and again at 24 hours. Cording was first noted between 24 hours and 1 week after infusion. In contrast, fosphenytoin was associated with mild pain in two subjects, one incident of phlebitis, and no erythema or cording. CONCLUSIONS: Fosphenytoin administration resulted in significantly less venous irritation and phlebitis compared with an equimolar dose of phenytoin. The clinical use of this water-soluble phenytoin prodrug should minimize the frequency and severity of infusion-site reactions and should allow convenient, rapid, intravenous administration of drug, undiluted or admixed with intravenous solutions.

Absolute bioavailability of phenytoin after 3-phosphoryloxymethyl phenytoin disodium (ACC-9653) administration to humans.

3-Phosphoryloxymethyl phenytoin disodium (ACC-9653) is a water-soluble investigational phenytoin (PHT) prodrug for parenteral administration. The objectives of this investigation were to determine the absolute bioavailability and free fraction of PHT after intravenous (i.v.) administration of ACC-9653. Twelve healthy male volunteers received PHT sodium (250 mg/5 ml; 229.95 mg free acid) and ACC-9653 (375 mg/5 ml; 232.87 mg free acid) i.v. in 30 min in a randomized, double-blind cross-over fashion. The conversion half-life (t 1/2) of ACC-9653 to PHT was 9.3 +/- 2.7 min. ACC-9653 was not detected in urine and greater than 99% of ACC-9653 was converted to PHT. The PHT area under the curve (AUC) was not statistically different between treatments; the bioavailability of PHT after ACC-9653 was 99 +/- 11%. The fraction of unbound converted PHT at the end of the prodrug infusion, in the presence of 44 micrograms/ml ACC-9653, was significantly higher than at 180 min, when the concentration of ACC-9653 was 0.1 microgram/ml. ACC-9653 was shown to be a bioequivalent PHT prodrug exhibiting less irritation at the injection site than the current marketed PHT.

Bioavailability of ACC-9653 (phenytoin prodrug).

The bioavailability of phenytoin from ACC-9653 versus intravenously administered sodium phenytoin was determined using a crossover design for intravenous and intramuscular administration of ACC-9653 to healthy volunteers. Absolute bioavailability of phenytoin derived from ACC-9653 in each subject was calculated as the ratio of the phenytoin area under the plasma concentration time curve for time 0 to infinity [AUC(0-inf)] after ACC-9653 divided by the phenytoin AUC(0-inf) after intravenous sodium phenytoin. The mean absolute bioavailability of ACC-9653 was 0.992 after intravenous administration and 1.012 after intramuscular administration. These data establish that the bioavailability of ACC-9653 is complete following intravenous or intramuscular administration in single-dose volunteer studies. The absolute bioavailability of phenytoin derived from ACC-9653 in subjects with therapeutic plasma phenytoin concentrations is being studied in patients given simultaneous infusions of stable isotope-labeled tracer doses of ACC-0653 and sodium phenytoin.