Effect of remifentanil on requirements for propofol administered by use of a target-controlled infusion system for maintaining anesthesia in dogs

Suzane L. Beier Department of Veterinary Surgery and Anesthesiology, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, Botucatu, São Paulo, 18618-000, Brazil.

Search for other papers by Suzane L. Beier in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD
,
Antonio J. de Araujo Aguiar Department of Veterinary Surgery and Anesthesiology, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, Botucatu, São Paulo, 18618-000, Brazil.

Search for other papers by Antonio J. de Araujo Aguiar in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD
,
Pedro T. G. Vianna Department of Anesthesiology, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Botucatu, São Paulo, 18618-000, Brazil.

Search for other papers by Pedro T. G. Vianna in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MD, PhD
,
Cláudio R. S. Mattoso Department of Clinical Medicine and Pathology, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, Botucatu, São Paulo, 18618-000, Brazil.

Search for other papers by Cláudio R. S. Mattoso in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MSc
, and
Flavio Massone Department of Veterinary Surgery and Anesthesiology, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, Botucatu, São Paulo, 18618-000, Brazil.

Search for other papers by Flavio Massone in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate the effect of remifentanil administered by use of a constant rate infusion on the predicted plasma concentration (Cppredicted) of propofol required to prevent awareness in 50% of anesthetized dogs (Cp50predicted).

Animals—6 healthy dogs.

Procedures—Each dog received 2 treatments (1-week interval): induction and maintenance of anesthesia with propofol alone and induction of anesthesia with propofol and maintenance of anesthesia by use of propofol and a constant rate infusion of remifentanil (0.3 μg/kg/min). To induce anesthesia, propofol was administered by use of a target-controlled infusion system to achieve Cppredicted of 6.0 μg/mL. Propofol Cppredicted was adjusted in 0.5 μg/mL increments or decrements; the motor response to a supramaximal electrical nociceptive stimulus was assessed after each change to determine Cp50predicted (mean of the highest Cppredicted at which gross purposeful movement was detected in response to stimulation and the lowest Cppredicted at which such movement was not detected).

Results—Mean ± SD duration of anesthesia for dogs receiving propofol (148 ± 35 minutes) and dogs receiving propofol-remifentanil treatment (141 ± 28 minutes) did not differ. Overall mean propofol Cppredicted for induction of anesthesia was 6.0 ± 0.5 μg/mL. For maintenance of anesthesia, propofol Cp50predicted was significantly reduced following addition of remifentanil to the protocol (2.0 ± 0.5 μg/mL vs 0.9 ± 0.4 μg/mL; 55% decrease).

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—In nonpremedicated dogs, propofol Cp50predicted of 6.0 μg/mL may be recommended for induction of anesthesia. Propofol requirements for maintaining target-controlled infusion system–based anesthesia were reduced via infusion of remifentanil at a rate of 0.3 μg/kg/min.

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate the effect of remifentanil administered by use of a constant rate infusion on the predicted plasma concentration (Cppredicted) of propofol required to prevent awareness in 50% of anesthetized dogs (Cp50predicted).

Animals—6 healthy dogs.

Procedures—Each dog received 2 treatments (1-week interval): induction and maintenance of anesthesia with propofol alone and induction of anesthesia with propofol and maintenance of anesthesia by use of propofol and a constant rate infusion of remifentanil (0.3 μg/kg/min). To induce anesthesia, propofol was administered by use of a target-controlled infusion system to achieve Cppredicted of 6.0 μg/mL. Propofol Cppredicted was adjusted in 0.5 μg/mL increments or decrements; the motor response to a supramaximal electrical nociceptive stimulus was assessed after each change to determine Cp50predicted (mean of the highest Cppredicted at which gross purposeful movement was detected in response to stimulation and the lowest Cppredicted at which such movement was not detected).

Results—Mean ± SD duration of anesthesia for dogs receiving propofol (148 ± 35 minutes) and dogs receiving propofol-remifentanil treatment (141 ± 28 minutes) did not differ. Overall mean propofol Cppredicted for induction of anesthesia was 6.0 ± 0.5 μg/mL. For maintenance of anesthesia, propofol Cp50predicted was significantly reduced following addition of remifentanil to the protocol (2.0 ± 0.5 μg/mL vs 0.9 ± 0.4 μg/mL; 55% decrease).

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—In nonpremedicated dogs, propofol Cp50predicted of 6.0 μg/mL may be recommended for induction of anesthesia. Propofol requirements for maintaining target-controlled infusion system–based anesthesia were reduced via infusion of remifentanil at a rate of 0.3 μg/kg/min.

  • 1.

    Miller DR. Intravenous infusion and delivery devices. Can J Anaesth 1994;41:639652.

  • 2.

    Smith I, Thwaites AJ. Target-controlled propofol vs. sevoflurane: a double-blind, randomised comparison in day-case anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 1999;54:745752.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Hong JY, Oh JI, Kim SM. Comparison of sevoflurane-nitrous oxide and target-controlled propofol with fentanyl anesthesia for hysteroscopy. Yonsei Med J 2002;43:420426.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Tsai YC, Wang LY, Yeh LS. Clinical comparison of recovery from total intravenous anesthesia with propofol and inhalation anesthesia with isoflurane in dogs. J Vet Med Sci 2007;69:11791182.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Li YH, Xu JH, Yang JJ, et al. Predictive performance of “Diprifusor” TCI system in patients during upper abdominal surgery under propofol/fentanyl anesthesia. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 2005;6:4348.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Stuart PC, Scott SM, Millar A, et al. Cp50 of propofol with and without nitrous oxide 67%. Br J Anaesth 2000;84:638639.

  • 7.

    Eger EI II, Saidman LJ, Branstater B. Minimum alveolar anaesthetic concentration: a standard anaesthetic potency. Anesthesiology 1965;26:756763.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Glass PS, Glen JB, Kenny GN, et al. Nomenclature for computerassisted infusion devices. Anesthesiology 1997;86:14301431.

  • 9.

    Beths T, Glen JB, Reid J, et al. Evaluation and optimisation of a target-controlled infusion system for administering propofol to dogs as part of a total intravenous anaesthetic technique during dental surgery. Vet Rec 2001;148:198203.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Musk GC, Pang DS, Beths T, et al. Target-controlled infusion of propofol in dogs—evaluation of four targets for induction of anaesthesia. Vet Rec 2005;157:766770.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Musk GC, Flaherty DA. Target-controlled infusion of propofol combined with variable rate infusion of remifentanil for anaesthesia of a dog with patent ductus arterious. Vet Anaesth Analg 2007;34:359364.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Glass PS, Hardman D, Kamiyama Y, et al. Preliminary pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of an ultra-short-acting opioid: remifentanil (GI87084B). Anesth Analg 1993;77:10311040.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Westmoreland CI, Hoke JF, Sebel PS. Pharmacokinetics of remifentanil (GI87084B) and its major metabolite (GI90291) in patients undergoing elective inpatient surgery. Anesthesiology 1993;79:893903.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Valverde A, Morey TE, Hernández J, et al. Validation of several types of noxious stimuli for use in determining the minimum alveolar concentration for inhalation anesthetics in dogs and rabbits. Am J Vet Res 2003;64:957962.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Thurmon JC, Tranquilli WJ, Benson GJ. Injectable anesthetics. In: Thurmon JC, Tranquilli WJ, Benson GJ, eds. Lumb & Jones' veterinary anesthesia. 3rd ed. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Co, 1996;210240.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Branson KR. Injectable and alternative anesthetic techniques. In: Thurmon JC, Tranquilli WJ, Benson GJ, eds. Lumb & Jones' veterinary anesthesia. 4th ed. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing, 2007;273299.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Marsh B, White M, Morton N, et al. Pharmacokinetic model driven infusion of propofol in children. Br J Anaesth 1991;67:4148.

  • 18.

    Schnider TW, Minto CF, Gambus PL, et al. The influence of method of administration and covariates on the pharmacokinetics of propofol in adult volunteers. Anesthesiology 1998;88:11701182.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Egan TD, Shafer SL. Target-controlled infusions for intravenous anesthetics: surfing USA not! Anesthesiology 2003;99:10391041.

  • 20.

    White M, Kenny GN, Schraag S. Use of target controlled infusion to derive age and gender covariates for propofol clearance. Clin Pharmacokinet 2008;47:119127.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Auckburally A, Pawson P, Flaherty D. A comparison of induction of anaesthesia using a target-controlled infusion device in dogs with propofol or a propofol and alfentanil admixture. Vet Anaesth Analg 2008;35:319325.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Ribeiro LM, Ferreira DA, Bressan NM, et al. Brain monitoring in dogs using the cerebral state index during the induction of anaesthesia via target-controlled infusion of propofol. Res Vet Sci 2008;85:227232.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Vuyk J, Engbers FH, Burm AG, et al. Pharmacodynamic interaction between propofol and alfentanil when given for induction of anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1996;84:288299.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Heavner JE. Drug interactions. In: Thurmon JC, Tranquilli WJ, Benson GJ, eds. Lumb and Jones' veterinary anesthesia. 3rd ed. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Co, 1996;3539.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Kazama T, Ikeda K, Morita K, et al. Comparison of the effect-site k(eO)s of propofol for blood pressure and EEG bispectral index in elderly and younger patients. Anesthesiology 1999;90:15171527.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Davies C. Excitatory phenomena following the use of propofol in dogs. J Vet Anaesth 1991;18:4851.

  • 27.

    Smith JA, Gaynor JS, Bednarski RM, et al. Adverse effects of administration of propofol with various preanesthetic regimens in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1993;202:11111115.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Weaver BM, Raptopoulos D. Induction of anaesthesia in dogs and cats with propofol. Vet Rec 1990;126:617620.

  • 29.

    Taylor IN, Kenny GN. Requirements for target-controlled infusion of propofol to insert the laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia 1998;53:222226.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    Hoke JF, Cunningham F, James MK, et al. Comparative pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil, its principle metabolite (GR90291) and alfentanil in dogs. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1997;281:226232.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    Zbinden AM, Maggiorini M, Peterson-Felix S, et al. Anesthetic depth defined using multiple noxious stimuli during isoflurane/oxygen anaesthesia. I. Motor reactions. Anesthesiology 1994;80:253260.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    Laster MJ, Liu J, Eger EI II, et al. Electrical stimulation as a substitute for the tail clamp in the determination of minimum alveolar concentration. Anesth Analg 1993;76:13101320.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33.

    Smith C, McEwan AI, Jhaveri R, et al. The interaction of fentanyl on the Cp50 of propofol for loss of consciousness and skin incision. Anesthesiology 1994;81:820828.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34.

    Andrews DT, Leslie K, Sessler DI, et al. The arterial blood propofol concentration preventing movement in 50% of healthy women after skin incision. Anesth Analg 1997;85:414419.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35.

    Kazama T, Ikeda K, Morita K. Reduction by fentanyl of the Cp50 values of propofol and hemodynamic responses to various noxious stimuli. Anesthesiology 1997;87:213227.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36.

    de Jong RH, Eger EI II. MAC expanded: AD50 and AD95 values of common inhalation anesthetics in man. Anesthesiology 1975;42:384389.

  • 37.

    Smith I, White PF, Nathanson M, et al. Propofol. An update on its clinical use. Anesthesiology 1994;81:10051043.

  • 38.

    O'Hare RA, Mirakhur RK, Reid JE, et al. Recovery from propofol anaesthesia supplemented with remifentanil. Br J Anaesth 2001;86:361365.

  • 39.

    Milne SE, Kenny GN, Schraag S. Propofol sparing effect of remifentanil using closed-loop anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2003;90:623629.

  • 40.

    Murrell JC, van Notten RW, Hellebrekers LJ. Clinical investigation of remifentanil and propofol for the total intravenous anaesthesia of dogs. Vet Rec 2005;156:804808.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41.

    Kabbaj M, Vachon P, Varin F. Impact of peripheral elimination on the concentration-effect relationship of remifentanil in anaesthetized dogs. Br J Anaesth 2005;94:357365.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42.

    Michelsen LG, Salmenpera M, Hug CC Jr, et al. Anesthetic potency of remifentanil in dogs. Anesthesiology 1996;84:865872.

  • 43.

    Albertin A, Casati A, Bergonzi P, et al. Effects of two target-controlled concentrations (1 and 3 ng/ml) of remifentanil on MAC(BAR) of sevoflurane. Anesthesiology 2004;100:255259.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44.

    Lang E, Kapila A, Shlugman D, et al. Reduction of isoflurane minimal alveolar concentration by remifentanil. Anesthesiology 1996;85:721728.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45.

    Fukuda K. Intravenous opioid anesthetics. In: Miller RD, ed. Miller's anaesthesia. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone Inc, 2005;379438.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46.

    James MK, Vuong A, Grizzle MK, et al. Hemodynamic effects of GI 87084B, an ultra-short acting mu-opioid analgesic, in anesthetized dogs. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1992;263:8491.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 47.

    Vuyk J, Engbers FH, Lemmens HJ, et al. Pharmacodynamics of propofol in female patients. Anesthesiology 1992;77:39.

  • 48.

    Lehmann A, Boldt J, Zeitler C, et al. Total intravenous anesthesia with remifentanil and propofol for implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators in patients with severely reduced left ventricular function. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 1999;13:1519.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement