Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:39:15.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Early postoperative cognitive recovery after remifentanil–propofol or sufentanil–propofol anaesthesia for supratentorial craniotomy: a randomized trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2006

F. Bilotta
Affiliation:
University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Rome, Italy
R. Caramia
Affiliation:
University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Rome, Italy
F. P. Paoloni
Affiliation:
G.I.M.E.M.A, Onlus, Rome, Italy
R. Favaro
Affiliation:
University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Rome, Italy
F. Araimo
Affiliation:
University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Rome, Italy
G. Pinto
Affiliation:
Ospedale S. Andrea, Department of Anesthesiology, Rome, Italy
G. Rosa
Affiliation:
University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Rome, Italy
Get access

Abstract

Summary

Background and objective: This study was designed to evaluate early postoperative cognitive recovery after total intravenous anaesthesia with remifentanil–propofol or sufentanil–propofol in patients undergoing craniotomy for supratentorial expanding lesions. Methods: Sixty patients were consecutively enrolled, and randomly assigned to one of two study groups: remifentanil–propofol or sufentanil–propofol anaesthesia. To evaluate cognitive function the Short Orientation Memory Concentration Test (SOMCT) and Rancho Los Amigos Scale (RLAS) were administered to all patients in a double-blind procedure before surgery at 15, 45 min and 3 h after extubation. Results: Mean extubation time was similar in the two groups (13 ± 5 min vs. 19 ± 6 min). A significantly larger number of patients in the remifentanil–propofol group than in the sufentanil–propofol group required antihypertensive medication postoperatively to maintain mean arterial pressure within 20% of baseline (18/30 vs. 4/29; P = 0.0004). Intergroup analysis showed no differences in baseline SOMCT scores (28 ± 1 vs. 28 ± 1) whereas mean SOMCT scores at 15, 45 min and 3 h after extubation were significantly higher in the remifentanil–propofol group (30 patients) than in the sufentanil–propofol group (29 patients) (22 ± 3 vs. 16 ± 3; P < 0.0001 and 27 ± 1 vs. 22 ± 3; P < 0.0001; 28 ± 1 vs. 26 ± 2; P = 0.0126). Conclusions: In conclusion, propofol–remifentanil and propofol–sufentanil are both suitable for fast-track neuroanaesthesia and provide similar intraoperative haemodynamics, awakening and extubation times. Despite a higher risk of treatable postoperative hypertension propofol–remifentanil allows earlier cognitive recovery.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
2007 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bruder NJ. Awakening management after neurosurgery for intracranial tumors. Curr Opin Anesthesiol 2002; 15: 477482.Google Scholar
Coles JP, Timothy SL, Monteiro JNet al. Propofol anesthesia for craniotomy: a double-blind comparison of remifentanil, alfentanil and fentanyl. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2000; 12: 1520.Google Scholar
Balakrishnan G, Raudznes P, Samra SKet al. A comparison of remifentanil and fentanyl in patients undergoing surgery for intracranial mass lesion. Anesth Analg 2000; 91: 163169.Google Scholar
Ergoren H, Luther G, Fenn-Buderer N. A comparison of fentanyl, sufentanyl and remifentanil for fast-track cardiac anesthesia. Anesth Analg 2001; 93(4): 859864.Google Scholar
Gerlach K, Uhlig T, Huppe Met al. Remifentanil–propofol versus sufentanil–propofol anaesthesia for supratentorial craniotomy: a randomized trial. Eur J Anaesth 2003; 20: 813820.Google Scholar
Davous P, Lamour Y, Debraud Eet al. A comparative evaluation of the short orientation memory concentration test of cognitive impairment. J Neurol Neurosurg Psych 1987; 50: 13121317.Google Scholar
Katzman R, Brown T, Fuld P, Peck A, Schechter R, Schimmel H. Validation of a short orientation-memory-concentration test of cognitive impairment. Am J Psychiat 1983; 140(6): 734739.Google Scholar
Perry J, Garrett M, Gronley JK, Mulroy SJ. Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke 1995; 26(6): 982989.Google Scholar
Beauchamp K, Baker S, McDaniel Cet al. Reliability of nurses' neurological assessments in the cardiothoracic surgical intensive care unit. Am J Crit Care 2001; 10(5): 298305.Google Scholar
Bilotta F, Pietropaoli P, La Rosa Iet al. Effects of shivering prevention on haemodynamic and metabolic demands in hypothermic postoperative neurosurgical patients. Anaesthesia 2001; 56(6): 514519.Google Scholar
Aldrete JA. The post-anaesthesia recovery score revisited. J Clin Anesth 1995; 7: 8991.Google Scholar
Muellejans B, Lopez A, Cross MHet al. Remifentanil versus fentanyl for analgesia based sedation to provide patient comfort in the intensive care unit: a randomized double blind controlled trial. Crit Care 2004; 8: 1314.Google Scholar
Gelb AW, Salevsky F, Chung Fet al. Remifentanil with morphine transitional analgesia shortens neurological recovery compared to fentanyl for supratentorial craniotomy. Can J Anesth 2003; 50(9): 946952.Google Scholar
Hood DD, Curry R, Eisenach JC. Intravenous remifentanil produces withdrawal hyperalgesia in volunteers with capsaicin-induced hyperalgesia. Anesth Analg 2003; 97(3): 810815.Google Scholar
Delvaux B, Ryckwaert Y, Van Boven Met al. Remifentanil in the intensive care unit: tolerance and acute withdrawal syndrome after prolonged sedation. Anesthesiology 2005; 102(6): 12811282.Google Scholar