Cited 0 times in

Comparison of the effect-site concentrations of remifentanil for Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway (SLIPA) versus laryngeal mask airway SoftSealTM insertion during target-controlled infusion of propofol

Title
Comparison of the effect-site concentrations of remifentanil for Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway (SLIPA) versus laryngeal mask airway SoftSealTM insertion during target-controlled infusion of propofol
Authors
SH Kim;EM Choi;YR Choi;MH Chung;CH Chang, HK Kim
Issue Date
2011
Journal Title
Anaesthesia and Intensive Care
ISSN
0310-057X
Citation
Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Vol.39(4) : 611~617, 2011
Abstract
This study was designed to determine the optimal dose of remifentanil required for the successful insertion of Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway (SLIPA) and to compare it to that required for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion in patients receiving a propofol infusion at a standard effect-site concentration. Fifty-eight patients scheduled to undergo general anaesthesia were randomly assigned to either the SLIPA (n = 29) or LMA (n = 29) group. All patients were premedicated with midazolam 0.05 mg x kg(-1) and glycopyrrolate 0.004 mg x kg(-1) intramuscularly. After the administration of lignocaine 1 mg x kg(-1) intravenously, a propofol infusion was started at an effect-site concentration of 3.5 microg x ml(-1) with a remifentanil infusion without a neuromuscular blocking agent. The remifentanil dose was determined by the modified up-and-down method starting in each group at 4 ng x ml(-1). Six minutes after induction, the airway device was inserted. Airway device insertion was classified as 'success' or 'failure' based on patient response. From the isotonic regression analysis and bootstrap distribution, the EC50 of remifentanil for SLIPA and LMA were 0.93 ng x ml(-1) (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81 to 1.50 ng x ml(-1) and 1.36 ng x ml(-1) (95% CI 1.19 to 2.06 ng x ml(-1)) respectively, and the EC95 for SLIPA and LMA insertions were 1.90 ng x ml(-1) (95% CI 1.39 to 1.95) and 2.43 ng x ml(-1) (95% CI 1.80 to 2.46 ng x ml(-1)) respectively. Using the 83% CIs from the bootstrap distribution, EC50 for SLIPA was significantly less than that of LMA (0.83 to 1.23 vs 1.26 to 2.00, respectively) (P < 0.05). These findings suggest that the insertion of SLIPA needs about a 32% lower depth of anaesthesia than LMA insertion.
URI
http://www.aaic.net.au/Document/?D=20101002

http://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/94291
Appears in Collections:
1. 연구논문 > 1. College of Medicine > Dept. of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
Yonsei Authors
사서에게 알리기
  feedback
Files in This Item:
Export
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)
XML

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse