			Home About us Contact

Alfentanil Group (alfentanil + group)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

Comparison of the incidence and severity of cough after alfentanil and remifentanil injection

ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, Issue 6 2010
H. B. CHO
Background: Intravenous administration of fentanyl derivatives can induce cough paradoxically. This study examined the incidence and severity of cough after a bolus of alfentanil and remifentanil. Methods: Four hundred and sixty-five patients, aged 18,70 years, were allocated randomly to three groups to receive alfentanil 10 ,g/kg, remifentanil 1 ,g/kg or an equal volume of 0.9% saline intravenously over 10 s. Any episode of cough was classified as coughing and graded as mild (1,2), moderate (3,4) or severe (5 or more). Results: The overall incidence of cough was higher in the opioid groups than in the saline group. The remifentanil group [39/150 patients; 26.0% (95% CI, 19.6,33.6%)] showed a higher incidence than the alfentanil group [11/152 patients; 7.2% (95% CI, 0.4,12.6%)] (P<0.001). There was no significant difference in the severity of cough between the alfentanil group and the remifentanil group. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that equipotent boluses of alfentanil and remifentanil induced coughing, even though the incidence of cough after alfentanil administration was lower than that after remifentanil administration. [source]

Ketamine or alfentanil administration prior to propofol anaesthesia: the effects on ProSealÔ laryngeal mask airway insertion conditions and haemodynamic changes in children

ANAESTHESIA, Issue 3 2009
Z. Begec
Summary This study was designed to compare the effects of ketamine and alfentanil administered prior to induction of anaesthesia with propofol, on the haemodynamic changes and ProSeal laryngeal mask airway® (PLMA) insertion conditions in children. Eighty children, aged between 3,132 months, were randomly allocated to receive either alfentanil 20 ,g.kg,1 (alfentanil group) or ketamine 0.5 mg.kg,1 (ketamine group) before induction of anaesthesia. Ninety seconds following the administration of propofol 4 mg.kg,1, a PLMA was inserted. In the ketamine group, heart rate and mean arterial pressure were higher during the study period compared with the alfentanil group (p < 0.05). The time for the return of spontaneous ventilation was prolonged in the alfentanil group (p = 0.004). In conclusion, we found that the administration of ketamine 0.5 mg.kg,1 with propofol 4 mg.kg,1 preserved haemodynamic stability, and reduced the time to the return of spontaneous ventilation, compared with alfentanil 20 ,g.kg,1 during PLMA placement. In addition, the conditions for insertion of the PLMA with ketamine were similar to those found with alfentanil. [source]

Tracheal intubating conditions after induction with sevoflurane 8% in children

ANAESTHESIA, Issue 8 2000
A comparison with two intravenous techniques
We studied tracheal intubating conditions in 120 healthy children, aged 3,12 years, in a blinded, randomised clinical trial. Children were randomly allocated to one of three groups: group PS, propofol 3 mg.kg,1 and succinylcholine 1 mg.kg,1 (n = 40); group PA, propofol 3 mg.kg,1 and alfentanil 10 µg.kg,1 (n = 40); group SF, sevoflurane 8% in 60% nitrous oxide in oxygen for 3 min (n = 40). Tracheal intubating conditions were graded according to ease of laryngoscopy, position of vocal cords, coughing, jaw relaxation and movement of limbs. Overall intubating conditions were acceptable in 39 of 40 children in the propofol/succinylcholine group, 21 of 40 children in the propofol/alfentanil group and 35 of 40 children in the sevoflurane group. Children receiving propofol and succinylcholine or sevoflurane had better intubating conditions overall than those given propofol and alfentanil (p < 0.01). In conclusion, anaesthetic induction and tracheal intubation using sevoflurane 8% for 3 min is a satisfactory alternative to propofol with succinylcholine in children. [source]

Randomized Clinical Trial of Propofol With and Without Alfentanil for Deep Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department

ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 9 2009
James R. Miner MD
Abstract Objectives:, The objectives were to compare the efficacy, occurrence of adverse events, and recovery duration of propofol with and without alfentanil for use in procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED). Methods:, This was a randomized nonblinded prospective trial of adult patients undergoing procedural sedation for painful procedures in the ED. Patients with pain before the procedure were given intravenous (IV) morphine sulfate until their pain was adequately treated at least 20 minutes before starting the procedure. Patients received 1 mg/kg propofol either with or without a supplemental dose of 10 ,g/kg alfentanil for deep procedural sedation. Doses, vital signs, nasal end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2), pulse oximetry, and bispectral electroencephalographic (EEG) analysis scores were recorded. Subclinical respiratory depression was defined as a change in ETCO2 of >10 mmHg, an oxygen saturation of <92% at any time, or an absent ETCO2 waveform at any time. Clinical events related to respiratory depression were noted during the procedure, including the addition of or increase in the flow rate of supplemental oxygen, the use of a bag-valve mask apparatus, airway repositioning, or stimulation to induce breathing. After the procedure, patients were asked if they experienced pain during the procedure or had recall of the procedure. Results:, A total of 150 patients were enrolled; 146 underwent sedation and were included in the analysis. Seventy-four patients received propofol, and 71 received propofol with alfentanil. No clinically significant complications were noted. Subclinical respiratory depression was seen in 24/74 patients in the propofol group and 30/71 patients in the propofol/alfentanil group (effect size = 9.8%, 95% CI = ,5.8% to 25.5%). Clinical signs of respiratory depression included an increase in supplemental oxygen use in 25 of the 74 propofol patients and 31 of the 71 propofol/alfentanil patients (effect size 9.9%, 95% CI = ,5.9% to 25.7%), the use of bag-valve mask apparatus in seven patients in the propofol group and 12 in the propofol/alfentanil group (effect size = 5.6%, 95% CI = ,3.5% to 18.4%), airway repositioning in 13 propofol patients and 20 propofol/alfentanil patients (effect size = 10.6%, 95% CI = ,3.0% to 24.2%), and stimulation to induce breathing in 11 propofol patients and 20 propofol/alfentanil patients (effect size = 13.3%, 95% CI = 0.1% to 26.5%). The total time of the procedure was longer for the alfentanil/propofol group (median = 11 minutes, range = 5,22 minutes) than for the propofol group (median = 9 minutes, range = 1 to 43 minutes; effect size = 1.93 minutes, 95% CI = 0.73 to 2.58, p = 0.02). Pain during the procedure was reported by 10 of the 74 patients in the propofol group and 7 of the 71 patients in the propofol/alfentanil group (effect size = 4.5%, 95% CI = ,6.8% to 14.1%). Recall of some part of the procedure was reported by 12 patients in the propofol group and 9 in the propofol/alfentanil group (effect size = 3.5%, 95% CI = ,7.9% to 15.0%). All procedures were successfully completed. Conclusions:, The use of supplemental alfentanil with propofol for procedural sedation did not result in a difference in reported pain or recall immediately after the procedure. There was an increase in the proportion of patients who required stimulation to induce respiration during the procedure in patients who received propofol with supplemental alfentanil. The addition of supplemental opioid to procedural sedation with propofol does not appear beneficial. [source]