4.6 Article

An evaluation of remifentanil propofol response surfaces for loss of responsiveness, loss of response to surrogates of painful stimuli and laryngoscopy in patients undergoing elective surgery

期刊

ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA
卷 106, 期 2, 页码 471-479

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181606c62

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we explored how a set of remifentanil-propofol response surface interaction models developed from data collected in volunteers would predict responses to events in patients undergoing elective surgery. Our hypotheses were that these models would predict a patient population's loss and return of responsiveness and the presence or absence of a response to laryngoscopy and the response to pain after surgery. METHODS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled. Anesthesia consisted of remifentanil and propofol infusions and fentanyl boluses. Loss and return of responsiveness, responses to laryngoscopy, and responses to postoperative pain were assessed in each patient. Model predictions were compared with observed responses. RESULTS: The loss of responsiveness model predicted that patients would become unresponsive 2.4 +/- 2.6 min earlier than observed. At the time of laryngoscopy, the laryngoscopy model predicted an 89% probability of no response to laryngoscopy and 81% did not respond. During emergence, the loss of responsiveness model predicted return of responsiveness 0.6 +/- 5.1 min before responsiveness was observed. The mean probability of no response to pressure algometry was 23% +/- 35% when patients required fentanyl for pain control. DISCUSSION: This preliminary assessment of a series of remifentanil-propofol interaction models demonstrated that these models predicted responses to selected pertinent events during elective surgery. However, significant model error was evident during rapid changes in predicted effect-site propofol-remifentanil concenteration pairs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据