Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T05:18:57.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reflex activity caused by laryngoscopy and intubation is obtunded differently by meptazinol, nalbuphine and fentanyl

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2006

E. Freye  and
J. V. Levy
E. Freye
Affiliation:
Heinrich-Heine-University of Düsseldorf, Clinics of Vascular Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Düsseldorf, Germany
J. V. Levy
Affiliation:
University of the Pacific (UOP), Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, San Francisco, CA, USA
Get access

Extract

Summary

Background and objective: To evaluate the different potencies of several opioids in obtunding reflex mechanisms of laryngoscopy and intubation. Methods: Three groups of patients (each n = 25, ASA 1–2) undergoing elective plastic surgery were randomly given meptazinol (2.5 mg kg−1 ), nalbuphine (0.3 mg kg−1) or fentanyl (5 μg kg−1) in a blinded fashion prior to laryngoscopy and intubation. This was followed by a standardized bolus induction of a barbiturate and a muscle relaxant. The response to laryngoscopy and intubation was studied, using blood pressure, heart rate and bispectral index. Results: With fentanyl, there was an increase of heart rate by 17%, and systolic blood pressure by 7% when compared to control. Bispectral index dropped an additional 8% when compared to 1 min after barbiturate induction. In the nalbuphine group there was a 16% increase in systolic blood pressure, and a 16% increase in heart rate when compared to control. Also, bispectral index increased by 18% when compared to 1 min after barbiturate injection. The group receiving meptazinol demonstrated no cardiovascular changes although bispectral index dropped by an additional 19% when compared to 1 min after barbiturate injection. Conclusion: Meptazinol, appears to depress cardiovascular stimulatory effects and electroencephalogram arousal induced by laryngoscopy and intubation better than nalbuphine or fentanyl.

Keywords

ANAESTHESIA INTRAVENOUSOPIOID ANALGESICS, fentanyl, meptazinol, nalbuphineLARYNGOSCOPYINTUBATION INTRATRACHEALELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM, bispectral indexHAEMODYNAMIC PHENOMENA, blood pressure, heart rate
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , January 2007 , pp. 53 - 58
Copyright
© 2006 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

Stoelting R. Circulatory changes during direct laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. Anesthesiology 1977; 47: 381–383.Google Scholar
Wilder-Smith OHG, Hagon A, Tassonyi E. EEG arousal during laryngoscopy and intubation: comparison of thiopentone or propofol supplemented with nitrous oxide. Br J Anaesth 1995; 75: 441–446.Google Scholar
Tolksdorf W, Schäfer E, Pfeiffer J, von Mittelstaedt G. Adrenalin-, Noradrenalin-, Blutdruck- und Herzfreqenzverhalten während der Intubation in Abhängigkeit unterschiedlicher Fentanyl-Dosen. Anästh Intensivther Notfallmed 1987; 22: 171–176.Google Scholar
Bowdle TA, Ward RJ. Induction of anesthesia with small doses of sufentanil or fentanyl: dose versus EEG response, speed of onset, and thiopental requirement. Anesthesiology 1989; 70: 26–30.Google Scholar
Tolksdorf W, Kollmann C, Simon H-B, Schulz U. Der Einfluß unterschiedlicher Alfentanildosen auf Blutdruck, Herzfrequenz und Plasmakatecholaminspiegel bei der endotrachealen Intubation. Anästh Intensivther Notfallmed 1990; 25: 198–202.Google Scholar
Kay B, Nolan D, Mayall R, Healy TE. The effect of sufentanil on the cardiovascular responses to tracheal intubation. Anaesthesia 1987; 42: 382–386.Google Scholar
Splinter W, Cervenko F. Hemodynamic responses to larangoscopy and tracheal intubation in geriatric patients: effects of fentanyl, lidocaine, and thiopentone. Can J Anaesth 1989; 36: 370–378.Google Scholar
Iyer V, Russell W. Induction using fentanyl to suppress the intubation response in the cardiac patient: what is the optimal dose? Anaesth Intens Care 1988; 16: 411–417.Google Scholar
Randel GI, Fragen RJ, Liboro ES, Jamerson BD, Gupta S. Remifentanil blood concentration effect relationship at intubation and skin incision in surgical patients compared to alfentanil. Anesthesiology 1994; 81: A375.Google Scholar
Schmidt WK, Tam SW, Shotzberger GS, Smith DH, Clark R, Vernier VG. Nalbuphine. Drug Alcohol Depen 1985; 14: 339–362.Google Scholar
Dumas PA. MAC reduction of enflurane and isoflurane and postoperative findings with nalbuphine HCl and fentanyl: a retrospective study. In: Gomez QJ ed., VII World Congress of Anaesthesiologists, Manila, Philippines. Amsterdam: Exerpta Medica, 1984: 43–53.
Holmes B, Ward A Meptazinol. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy. Drugs 1985; 30: 285–312.Google Scholar
Jordan C. A comparison of the respiratory effects of meptazinol, pentazocine and morphine. Br J Anaesth 1979; 51: 497–501.Google Scholar
Gal TJ, Di Fazo CA, Moscicki J. Analgesic and respiratory depressant activity of nalbuphine: a comparison with morphine. Anesthesiology 1982; 57: 367–374.Google Scholar
Freye E, Dehnen-Seipel H, Latasch L, Behler M, Wilder-Smith OHG. Slow EEG-power spectra correlate with hemodynamic changes during laryngoscopy and intubation following induction with fentanyl and sufentanil. Acta Anaesth Belg 1999; 50: 71–76.Google Scholar
Harris CE, Murray AM, Anderson JM, Grounds RM, Morgan M. Effects of thiopentone, etomidate and propofol on the hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation. Anaesthesia 1988; 43: 32–36.Google Scholar
Lindgren L, Yli-Hankala A, Randell T, Kirvela M, Scheirin M, Neuvonen PJ. Haemodynamic and catecholamine responses to induction of anaesthesia and tracheal intubation: comparison between propofol and thiopentone. Br J Anaesth 1988; 70: 306–310.Google Scholar
Rampil IJ, Matteo RS. Changes in EEG spectral edge frequency correlate with the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation. Anesthesiology 1987; 67: 139–142.Google Scholar
Robson PJ. Clinical review of parenteral meptazinol. Postgrad Med J 1983; 59: 85–92.Google Scholar
Freye E. Opioide in Der Medizin. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 2004.
Dray A, Nunan L, Wire W. Meptazinol: unusual opioid receptor activity at supraspinal and spinal sites. Neuropharmacology 1986; 25: 343–349.Google Scholar
Bill DJ, Hartley JE, Stephens RJ, Thompson AM. The antinociceptive activity of meptazinol depends on both opiate and cholinergic mechanisms. Br J Pharmacol 1983; 79: 191–199.Google Scholar
Hood HD, Mallak KA, James RL, Tuttle R, Eisenach JC. Enhancement of analgesia from systemic opioid in humans by spinal cholinesterase inhibition. J Pharmacol Expt Ther 1997; 282: 86–92.Google Scholar
Omais M, Lauretti GR, Paccola CAJ. Epidural morphine and neostigmine for postoperative analgesia after orthopedic surgery. Anesth Analg 2002; 95: 1698–1701.Google Scholar
Lauretti GR, Lima ICPR. The effects of intrathecal neostigmine on somatic and visceral pain: improvement by association with a peripheral anticholinergic. Anesth Analg 1996; 82: 617–620.Google Scholar
Chiang C-Y, Zhuo M. Evidence for the involvement of a descending cholinergic pathway in systemic morphine analgesia. Brain Res 1989; 478: 293–300.Google Scholar
Beilin B, Bessler H, Papismedov L, Weinstock M, Shavit Y. Continuous physostigmine combined with morphine-based patient-controlled analgesia in the postoperative period. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2005; 49: 78–84.Google Scholar
Gillberg PG, d'Argy R, Aquilonius SM. Autoradiographic distribution of [3H]acetylcholine binding sites in the cervical spinal cord of man and some other species. Neurosci Lett 1988; 90: 197–202.Google Scholar
Pasternak GW, Adler BA, Rodriguez J. Characterization of the opioid receptor binding and animal pharmacology of meptazinol. Postgrad Med J 1985; 61: 5–12.Google Scholar
Romagnoli A, Keats AS. Ceiling effect for respiratory depression by nalbuphine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1980; 27: 478–485.Google Scholar
Vatahasky E, Haskel Y. The effect of nalbuphine (Nubain®) compared to morphine and fentanyl on common bile duct pressure. Curr Ther Res 1985; 37: 95–102.Google Scholar
McCammon RL, Stoelting RK, Madura JA. Effects of butorphanol, nalbuphine, and fentanyl on intrabiliary tract dynamics. Anesth Analg 1984; 63: 139–142.Google Scholar
Hardman JG, Limbird LE, Molinoff PB, Ruddon RW, Gilman AG. Goodman & Gilman's the Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc, 1996.
Spiegel K, Pasternack GW. Meptazinol: a novel mu-1 selective opioid analgesic. J Pharmacol Expt Ther 1984; 228: 414–419.Google Scholar
Corbett D, Paterson SJ, Kosterlitz HW. Selectivity of ligands for opioid receptors. In: Herz A ed., Opioids I. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 1993: 645–680.
Hargreaves J, Kay B, Healy TE. Meptazinol as an analgesic adjunct to total intravenous anaesthesia in cystoscopy patients. Anaesthesia 1985; 40: 490–493.Google Scholar
Borgeat A, Fuchs T, Wilder-Smith O, Tassonyi E. The effect of nalbuphine and droperidol on spontaneous movements during induction of anesthesia with propofol in children. J Clin Anesth 1993; 5: 12–14.Google Scholar
Cork RC, Weiss J, Hameroff SR, Bentley JB. Pre-treatment with low-dose fentane for rapid-sequence intubation. Anesthesiology 1983; 59: A334.Google Scholar
Lu CC, Tsai CS, Ho ST et al. Pharmacokinetics of sevoflurane uptake into the brain and body. Anaesthesia 2003; 58: 951–956.Google Scholar
Freye E, Buhl R, Ciaramelli F. Somatosensory-evoked potentials as predictors of the analgesic efficacy of nalbuphine, a mixed narcotic analgesic. Pain Clin 1987; 1: 225–231.Google Scholar
Freye E, Buhl R. Somatosensory-evoked potentials for the evaluation of analgesic properties of nalbuphine in man. Anesth Analg 1986; 65: 551.Google Scholar
Levy WJ. Intraoperative EEG patterns: implications for EEG monitoring. Anesthesiology 1984; 60: 430–434.Google Scholar
Shah NK, Spydell J, Desidero D, Bedford D. Processed EEG monitoring for preventing awareness during light isoflurane/fentanyl anaesthesia. In: Bonke B, Fitch W, Millar K eds., Memory and Awareness in Anaesthesia. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger, 1990: 378–381.
Gurses E, Sungurtekin H, Tomatir E, Dogan H. Assessing propofol induction of anesthesia dose using bispectral index analysis. Anesth Analg 2004; 98: 128–131.Google Scholar
Moruzzi G, Magoun HW. Brain stem reticular formation and activation of the EEG. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 1949; 1: 455–473.Google Scholar
De Souza EB, Schmidt WK, Kuhar MJ. Nalbuphine: an autoradiographic opioid receptor binding profile in the central nervous system on an agonist/antagonist analgesic. J Pharmacol Expt Ther 1987; 244: 391–402.Google Scholar