Comparison between the recovery time of alfentanil and fentanyl in balanced propofol sedation for gastrointestinal and colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized study.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in balanced propofol sedation (BPS) titrated to moderate sedation (conscious sedation) for endoscopic procedures. However, few controlled studies on BPS targeted to deep sedation for diagnostic endoscopy were found. Alfentanil, a rapid and short-acting synthetic analog of fentanyl, appears to offer clinically significant advantages over fentanyl during outpatient anesthesia.It is reasonable to hypothesize that low dose of alfentanil used in BPS might also result in more rapid recovery as compared with fentanyl. METHODS: A prospective, randomized and double-blinded clinical trial of alfentanil, midazolam and propofol versus fentanyl, midazolam and propofol in 272 outpatients undergoing diagnostic esophagogastroduodenal endoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy for health examination were enrolled. Randomization was achieved by using the computer-generated random sequence. Each combination regimen was titrated to deep sedation. The recovery time, patient satisfaction, safety and the efficacy and cost benefit between groups were compared. RESULTS: 260 participants were analyzed, 129 in alfentanil group and 131 in fentanyl group. There is no significant difference in sex, age, body weight, BMI and ASA distribution between two groups. Also, there is no significant difference in recovery time, satisfaction score from patients, propofol consumption, awake time from sedation, and sedation-related cardiopulmonary complications between two groups. Though deep sedation was targeted, all cardiopulmonary complications were minor and transient (10.8%, 28/260). No serious adverse events including the use of flumazenil, assisted ventilation, permanent injury or death, and temporary or permanent interruption of procedure were found in both groups. However, fentanyl is New Taiwan Dollar (NT$) 103 (approximate US$ 4) cheaper than alfentanil, leading to a significant difference in total cost between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized, double-blinded clinical trial showed that there is no significant difference in the recovery time, satisfaction score from patients, propofol consumption, awake time from sedation, and sedation-related cardiopulmonary complications between the two most common sedation regimens for EGD and colonoscopy in our hospital. However, fentanyl is NT$103 (US$ 4) cheaper than alfentanil in each case. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Institutional Review Board of Buddhist Tzu Chi General Hospital (IRB097-18) and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-TRC-12002575).

[Propofol for paediatric patients in ear, nose and throat surgery. Practicability, quality and cost-effectiveness of different anaesthesia procedures for adenoidectomy in infants]. / Propofoleinsatz für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Eingriffe im Kindesalter. Praktikabilität, Qualität und Kosteneffektivität verschiedener Narkoseverfahren zur Adenotomie bei Kindern.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was an improvement in patient comfort, reduction of anaesthesia costs and room contamination by the use of propofol for adenoidectomy. METHODS: A total of 103 infants (aged 1-5 years) undergoing elective adenoidectomy were randomized for anaesthesia with sevoflurane-nitrous oxide/oxygen (group 1), sevoflurane-air/alfentanil (group 2), alfentanil-propofol under induction with sevoflurane (group 3) or alfentanil-propofol (group 4). RESULTS: Using propofol, postoperative agitation and emesis were significantly less and the anaesthesia costs as well as the need for analgesics was reduced compared to inhalative anaesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: The use of propofol for preschool children undergoing ear, nose and throat (ENT) surgery seems to be advantageous because of less postoperative agitation, emesis and costs.

A prospective audit of cost of sedation, analgesia and neuromuscular blockade in a large British ICU.

Bottom-up costs of sedative, analgesic and neuromuscular blocking drugs used in the intensive care unit have not been reported. We performed a prospective audit of the cost of these drugs using a bottom-up approach by prospectively recording the daily amount of drugs administered to patients over a 3-month period. Of 172 admissions, complete data were collected for 155 (92%). Propofol and alfentanil were the drugs most commonly used, being administered to 136 (88%) and 106 (68%) patients, respectively. The total cost was 14,070 pounds sterling, which was 81% of the pharmacy figure (based on central purchasing). Ninety-four per cent of the cost was for drugs administered to the 50% of patients who stayed in the intensive care unit longer than 48 h. The median (interquartile range [range]) cost per day was 9.30 pounds sterling (3.60-20.10 [0-61.20]). This represents less than 1% of reported total daily cost of intensive care per patient.

Fast-track eligibility, costs and quality of recovery after intravenous anaesthesia with propofol-remifentanil versus balanced anaesthesia with isoflurane-alfentanil.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The randomized, patient- and observer-blinded study was performed in 120 patients undergoing ear, nose and throat surgery to test the hypothesis that intravenous anaesthesia with propofol-remifentanil when compared with a balanced anaesthesia technique using isoflurane-alfentanil improves the speed of recovery, minimizes postoperative side-effects and, thus, leads to an improved quality of recovery without increasing total costs. METHODS: The total costs for each anaesthesia technique were calculated considering drug acquisition costs, personnel costs for the additional time spent in the operating room and the postanaesthesia care unit until fast-tracking eligibility, and the costs to treat the side-effects during and after operation. RESULTS: The times from the end of surgery to tracheal extubation and the time until leaving the operating room were not different between the two groups. However, more patients receiving intravenous anaesthesia (80 versus 49%) were eligible for fast tracking and thus could bypass the recovery room. This was associated with an average cost saving of 6.00 euros per patient. However, intravenous anaesthesia was associated with higher total costs (89 euros versus 78 euros) mainly because of higher acquisition costs of the anaesthetics (34.60 euros versus 16.50 euros). There was no difference in the quality of recovery as measured by a Quality of Recovery score and patient satisfaction between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The higher acquisition costs of the intravenous anaesthetics propofol and remifentanil cannot be compensated for by improved speed of recovery. This anaesthesia technique is more cost intensive than balanced anaesthesia using isoflurane and alfentanil.

[Remifentanil and eye surgery. A randomized, clinical comparison of propofol/remifentanil anesthesia and propofol/fentanyl/alfentanil anesthesia]. / Remifentanil og øjenkirurgi. En randomiseret, klinisk kontrolleret sammenligning af propofol/remifentanil-anaestesi og propofol/fentanyl/alfentanil-anaestesi.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate how many patients, after anesthesia with either propofol/remifentanil or propofol/fentanyl/alfentanil, within 20 minutes from the end of surgery could be transferred directly to the general ward. The number of undesired preoperative incidents, the anesthetists', the surgeons', and the patients' evaluations of the anesthesia were registered. An evaluation of the economic consequences of the two methods was also intended. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was clinically controlled, randomised, and partly blinded. A total of 80 patients undergoing eye surgery were recruited. The patients were scored 10, 15, and 20 minutes after the end of surgery according to a modified Aldrete score. With sufficient awakening score, the patients were transferred to the general ward. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients in each group underwent the examination. In the propofol/remifentanil-group 31 (86%) could be transferred to the general ward compared to 15 (42%) in the proponol/fentanyl/alfentanil-group. In the propofol/remifentanil-group there were less reactions to the start of surgery, more episodes with preoperative hypotension and postoperative shivering. Otherwise there were no differences between the groups. It was estimated that the additional expenses for medcine were by far outweighed by the lower costs postoperatively. DISCUSSION: With a propofol/remifentanil-anesthesia, the patients had a predictably short awakening time, so they could be transferred directly to the general ward. This may, especially in ambulatory surgery, mean cost savings and perhaps higher patient satisfaction.

Self-administration of cocaine, alfentanil, and nalbuphine under progressive-ratio schedules: consumer demand and labor supply analyses of relative reinforcing effectiveness.

Progressive-ratio (PR) schedules of intravenous (i.v.) drug self-administration are useful for establishing the relationships between reinforcing effectiveness and pharmacological actions of abused drugs. The authors compared the reinforcing effects of the high-efficacy opioid alfentanil, the low-efficacy opioid nalbuphine, and cocaine using a PR schedule of i.v. drug injection in rhesus monkeys in which the response requirement increased during the experimental session and the initial response requirement (IRR) was varied. Analyses based on either consumer demand or labor supply models of behavioral economics revealed that the relative reinforcing effectiveness of cocaine and alfentanil was greater than that of nalbuphine. These results suggest that PR schedules with varying IRRs can provide meaningful estimates of the relative reinforcing effectiveness of abused drugs.

Comparison of hemodynamics, recovery profile, and early postoperative pain control and costs of remifentanil versus alfentanil-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA).

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare hemodynamics, recovery profiles, early postoperative pain control and costs of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and remifentanil and propofol and alfentanil. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind study. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: 40 ASA physical status I and II adult patients scheduled for lumbar discectomy. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remifentanil-propofol or alfentanil-propofol. Anesthesia was induced with remifentanil 1 microg kg(-1) or alfentanil 20 microg kg(-1) with propofol 2 mg kg(-1), and maintained with infusions of propofol 150 to 100 microg kg(-1)min(-1) and either remifentanil 0.1 microg kg(-1) min(-1) or alfentanil 0.5 microg kg(-1) min(-1). MEASUREMENTS: Hemodynamic parameters (heart rate and mean arterial pressure), times to awakening, and tracheal extubation were recorded. In the postanesthesia care unit, pain level, frequency of analgesic demand, frequency of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), partial oxygen saturation (SpO2), and respiratory rates were noted. Drug dosages and costs of each technique were determined. MAIN RESULTS: The mean arterial pressure significantly decreased compared to baseline values 1 minute after induction (p < 0.05) in both groups, and it significantly decreased at 5, 15, and 30 minutes perioperatively in the remifentanil group compared to the alfentanil group (p < 0.05). Time of extubation, spontaneous eye opening, and response to verbal command were similar in both groups. Visual analog scale pain scores at 30 minutes and 60 minutes were significantly lower in the alfentanil group than remifentanil group (p < 0.05). At 15, 30, and 60 minutes after terminating the operation oxygen saturation and respiratory rate were significantly higher (p < 0.05) and analgesics were required sooner in the remifentanil group than the alfentanil group (p < 0.05). The frequency of PONV was similar in both groups. The remifentanil-propofol anesthesia was found to be slightly more expensive as compared to the alfentanil based TIVA (33.41 +/- 4.53 vs. 29.97 +/- 4.1 USD) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both remifentanil and alfentanil provided a reasonably rapid and reliable recovery. The remifentanil-based TIVA was associated with high intraoperative cost and early postoperative pain, but it allowed a more rapid respiratory recovery.

Inhalation versus total intravenous anesthesia for lumbar disc herniation: comparison of hemodynamic effects, recovery characteristics, and cost.

The clinical effects, recovery characteristics, and costs of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA), sevoflurane, and isoflurane anesthesia have been measured in various out-patient operations, but have not been evaluated in patients undergoing laminectomy or discectomy. In the current study, the authors assessed the hemodynamic characteristics, recovery, and cost analyzes after laminectomy and discectomy operations, comparing TIVA, sevoflurane, and isoflurane anesthesia. Sixty American Society of Anesthesiologists I and II patients were randomly divided into three groups, each consisting of 20 patients. Group I received propofol-alfentanil, Group 2 received sevoflurane-N2O, and Group 3 received isoflurane-N2O. At the end of surgery, the anesthetics were discontinued, and recovery from anesthesia was assessed by measuring the time until spontaneous eye opening and the time until response to verbal commands. The drug and delivery costs were calculated in United States dollars. No significant differences were found in the demographic data. Heart rate and mean arterial pressure decreased significantly after induction of anesthesia in the TIVA group, compared to the two other groups ( P < .05 for both comparisons). The fastest recovery was seen in the TIVA group. Incidences of postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pain were significantly reduced after TIVA ( P < .05 for both comparisons). Thus, TIVA patients required fewer additional drugs and showed the lowest additional costs in the post-anesthesia care unit. However, the total cost was significantly higher in the TIVA group than in the sevoflurane and isoflurane groups (52.73 dollars, 29.99 dollars, and 24.14 dollars, respectively) ( P < .05). Total intravenous anesthesia was associated with the highest intraoperative cost but provided the most rapid recovery from anesthesia, and the least frequent postoperative side effects.

A cost analysis of alfentanil+propofol vs morphine+midazolam for the sedation of critically ill patients.

Morphine + midazolam and alfentanil + propofol are regimens offering well tolerated and effective sedation for critically ill patients. However, morphine + midazolam is associated with accumulation in these patients, resulting in prolonged recovery characteristics. Alfentanil+propofol, although more expensive, has a shorter elimination half-life, is not associated with accumulation problems and results in a rapid recovery. This study compared sedation quality, patient recovery characteristics and the cost of alfentanil + propofol and morphine + midazolam for sedating critically ill patients in the intensive care setting. 26 patients were randomly allocated to receive sedation with alfentanil + propofol (n = 17) or morphine + midazolam (n = 9). Outcome measures were the times until extubation, intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and final hospital discharge. Cost analysis assessed both drug-related costs, including drug acquisition and administration, and non-drug-related costs, including bed occupancy. Age, gender, diagnosis, Acute Physiological and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores and sedation quality did not differ significantly between groups. The times to extubation and until patients were fit for transfer from ICU were significantly shorter for patients sedated with alfentanil + propofol than for those sedated with morphine + midazolam. The total costs (at the time of the study Pounds 1 was equivalent to $US1.59) for ICU hospital stay per patient for alfentanil + propofol and morphine + midazolam were 3063 Pounds and 9511 Pounds, respectively, because the shorter recovery characteristics of alfentanil + propofol led to a reduction in ICU stay. Corresponding costss for total hospital stay were 6063 Pounds and 13735 Pounds, respectively. In conclusion, alfentanil + propofol has a better pharmacoeconomic profile than morphine + midazolam for sedating critically ill patients in the ICU setting.

Nitrous oxide reduces the cost of intravenous anaesthesia.

One hundred and one women (ASA grades I and II) were anaesthetized for routine gynaecological surgery using an intravenous (i.v.) anaesthetic technique combining propofol and alfentanil. The patients were allocated randomly into groups. Group one received 33% oxygen in nitrous oxide and group two received 33% oxygen in air (total i.v. anaesthesia). The group receiving nitrous oxide required significantly less (P < 0.05) of the propofol and alfentanil mixture to maintain anaesthesia and this was found to reduce the mean cost of anaesthesia by 1.70 pounds, (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups. We suggest that nitrous oxide may be used to reduce the cost of total i.v. anesthesia with propofol and alfentanil without causing any increase in post-operative morbidity in patients undergoing routine gynaecological surgery.

Normalized demand for drugs and other reinforcers.

The concepts of behavioral economics have proven to be useful for understanding the environmental control of overall levels of responding for a variety of commodities, including reinforcement by drug self-administration. These general concepts have implications for the assessment of abuse liability and drug abuse intervention and the formulation of public policy on drug abuse. An essential requirement is the ability to compare the demand for different drugs directly in order to assess relative abuse liability, and to compare demand for the same drug under different environmental and biological interventions to assess their ability to reduce demand. Until now, such comparisons were hampered by the confounding effect of varying drug doses and potencies that prevent quantitative comparisons of demand elasticity--sensitivity of consumption and responding to the constraint of price (effort). In this paper we describe a procedure to normalize demand-curve analysis that permits dose- and potency-independent comparisons of demand across drugs. The procedure is shown to be effective for comparing drug demand within and across the drug classes. The technique permits a quantitative ordering of demand that is consistent with the peak levels of responding maintained by the drugs. The same technique is generalized for the comparison of other types of reinforcers under different biological conditions.

Propofol infusion technique for outpatient general anesthesia.

PURPOSE: The purpose was to evaluate the suitability of a continuous propofol infusion in combination with alfentanil for outpatient general anesthesia in an oral and maxillofacial surgery practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven ASA 1 patients were selected to undergo oral and maxillofacial surgery outpatient procedures of short duration. Induction of anesthesia was accomplished with 1 mg/kg intravenous (i.v.) propofol and 10 micrograms/kg i.v. alfentanil. Local anesthesia was administered. General anesthesia was maintained with a continuous infusion of 150 micrograms/kg/min of propofol. Various physical and psychomotor responses were recorded during induction, maintenance, emergence, and recovery. RESULTS: Anesthesia was successfully induced in all patients with single, slowly titrated, bolus doses of 1 mg/kg of propofol and 10 micrograms/kg of alfentanil. Induction of general anesthesia occurred in less than 1 minute in all cases and no excitatory phenomena, tremor, or hypertonus were observed. Maintenance of anesthesia was adequately accomplished and cardiovascular parameters remained within acceptable limits throughout the procedure. The average length of surgery was 22 minutes. Movement to surgical stimulus was minimal and easily managed with additional local anesthetic and/or a 10-mg bolus of propofol. Time to eye opening was approximately 5 minutes from the discontinuation of the propofol infusion. No emergence phenomena were observed. All patients were ready for discharge with baseline psychomotor activity within 30 minutes following the end of the procedure. The average total dose of propofol was 350 mg and the average dose of alfentanil was 750 micrograms. CONCLUSION: This anesthetic technique has numerous advantages with minimal side effects, and should be considered for routine use for outpatient general anesthesia in oral and maxillofacial surgery.

Evaluation of cost minimization strategies of anaesthetic drugs in a tertiary care hospital.

A survey was undertaken to compare anaesthetic drug expenditures over a three-year period, to evaluate the impact of strategies offered to curtain continuously rising drug costs. Suggestions to control rising expenditures were based primarily on education of staff and residents regarding drug costs, emphasizing rational use of the more expensive drugs, and minimizing drug wastage. To assess the impact of these measures, a review of annual hospital budgets, global pharmacy expenditures, and anaesthetic drug expenditures was conducted for the period 1991 to 1993. Both absolute and proportional costs of anaesthetic drugs were compared, by year, according to six major classes: opioid analgesics (OA), muscle relaxants (MR), inhalational anaesthetic drugs (INH), intravenous anaesthetic drugs (i.v.), local anaesthetic drugs (LA) and a category labelled other drugs (OTH). In addition, the utilization patterns and unit price changes were compared for each drug for the periods 1991-92, and 1992-93. Total hospital drug costs increased from $7.1 M to $8.5M over the three years. During the same period, the cost of anaesthetic drugs decreased from $379K to $361K, despite an augmentation in annual case load from 12,507 to 13,076 surgical procedures. For the entire survey period, the mean cumulative anaesthetic drug cost was 4.6% of the pharmacy budget, or 0.24% of the hospital budget. Analysis by drug class revealed a $51K decrease in expenditures on OA. due to decreased utilization of fentanyl and alfentanil, and a decrease in the price of fentanyl. The increased expenditure on INH drugs was primarily due to an increase in acquisition costs.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Comparison of fentanyl, sufentanil and alfentanil during awake craniotomy for epilepsy.

Neurolept anaesthesia is used during awake craniotomy for epilepsy surgery. This study compares analgesia, sedation and the side effects of the newer opioids sufentanil and alfentanil, with those of fentanyl in patients undergoing awake craniotomy. Thirty patients were randomized into three groups, each received droperidol, dimenhydrinate and the chosen opioid as a bolus followed by an infusion. The opioid doses used were fentanyl 0.75 microgram.kg-1 plus 0.01 microgram.kg-1 x min-1; sufentanil 0.075 microgram.kg-1 plus 0.0015 microgram.kg-1 x min-1, and alfentanil 7.5 micrograms.kg-1 plus 0.5 microgram.kg-1 x min-1. There were no differences in the requirements for droperidol, dimenhydrinate or in the incidence of complications among the three groups. The total doses of the opioids required were fentanyl 4.9 +/- 1.3 micrograms.kg-1, sufentanil 0.6 +/- 0.2 microgram.kg-1 and alfentanil 149 +/- 36 micrograms.kg-1. Two patients became uncooperative requiring general anesthesia. The conditions for surgery, electrocorticography and for stimulation testing were satisfactory in all other patients. We conclude that the newer opioids did not offer any benefit over fentanyl.