Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Comparison of remifentanil with alfentanil for nasotracheal intubation in day-case dental anaesthesia

Renwick, S. R.; Reavley, C. M.; Fernandez, R.; Bates, S.; Rucklidge, M.; Brunner, M. D.

European Journal of Anaesthesiology: 2000 - Volume 17 - Issue - p 8-9
European Society of Anaesthesiologists; 8th Annual Meeting with the Austrian International Congress; Vienna, Austria, 1-4 April 2000
Free

Department of Anaesthesia, Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow, Middlesex, UK

Abstract A-27

Background and goal of study: The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of remifentanil in nasotracheal intubation for day case dental extraction. We compared remifentanil and alfentanil in terms of intubating conditions, time to return of spontaneous respiration, haemodynamic stability and post-op course.

Subjects and methods: The study received Ethics Committee approval and all patients gave written, informed consent. Using a double-blind design, 60 ASA grade I or II patients undergoing wisdom teeth extraction, were randomized to receive either remifentanil 1 μg kg−1 (group R), alfentanil 10 μg kg−1 (group A10) or alfentanil 20 μg kg−1 (group A20). Induction was with propofol 2.5 mg kg−1 and patients were intubated using either a blind nasal technique or direct laryngoscopy if the nasotracheal tube could not be placed blindly after three attempts. Anaesthesia was maintained using manual ventilation of the lungs with 1% isoflurane, 70% nitrous oxide and 30% oxygen. Haemodynamic data and time to return of spontaneous respiration (TRR) were recorded. Conditions for intubation were graded as: (1) excellent (blind nasal or jaw relaxed, cords abducted, no movement on passage of the tube), (2) good (cords abducted, jaw relaxed, some movement on intubation), (3) poor (cords abducted, difficulty opening mouth or movement on intubation) or (4) additional muscle relaxant needed for intubation. Follow up data was also recorded 2 h and 24 h postoperatively.

Results and discussion: Good or excellent intubating conditions were achieved in 43% of group R compared with 42% of group A10 and 42% of group A20. Significant differences in the TRR were seen between the three groups (P = 0.02), being fastest (4.8 min) in group R. TRR was 5.1 min in group A10 and 7.9 min in group A20. There was no significant difference in postoperative pain, nausea, vomiting or sore throat between groups.

Conclusion: Remifentanil affords similar intubating conditions in this setting to alfentanil and a more rapid and consistent time to return of spontaneous respiration. The frequency of successful intubation for both these drugs in lower than that reported for succinylcholine [1].

Acknowledgment including financial support: We thank Glaxo Wellcome for their support.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Reference:

1 Alcock R, Peachey T, Lynch M et al. Comparison of alfentanil with succinylcholine in facilitating nasotracheal intubation in day-case anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 1993; 70: 34-37.

Section Description

The abstracts published in this supplement have been typeset from camera-ready copies prepared by the authors. Every effort has been made to reproduce faithfully the abstracts as submitted. However, no responsibility is assumed by the organisers for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. Because of the rapid advances in medical sciences, we recommend that independent verification of diagnoses and drug doses should be made.

Ambulatory anaesthesia

© 2000 European Society of Anaesthesiology