Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bolus remifentanil for chest drain removal in ICU: a randomized double-blind comparison of three modes of analgesia in post-cardiac surgical patients

  • Original
  • Published:
Intensive Care Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We compared 1 versus 0.5 μg/kg bolus remifentanil versus placebo in alleviating pain due to chest drain removal. Effects on sedation, respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation, heart rate (HR) and blood pressure were also evaluated.

Methods

Sixty patients following cardiac surgery were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Patients were randomized to 1 or 0.5 μg/kg remifentanil or placebo. All received standardized analgesia. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores and cardio-respiratory data were recorded pre-procedure, at drain removal and at 2 min intervals post procedure.

Results

Patients receiving remifentanil had statistically significantly less pain than placebo at drain removal [median (25–75%) VAS: 0.5 μg/kg remifentanil 1 (0–2) versus placebo 5 (3–6), P = 0.001; 1.0 μg/kg remifentanil 0 (0–2) versus placebo 5 (3–6), P = 0.0001]. VAS scores between remifentanil groups were equivalent. Remifentanil 1 μg/kg versus placebo at drain removal revealed significant reductions in HR [mean ± standard deviation (SD): 76 ± 15 versus 92 ± 10, P = 0.01], blood pressure [mean ± SD: 103 ± 22 versus 131 ± 14, P = 0.01] and RR [median (25–75%): 10 (8–12) versus 16 (14–18), P = 0.001]. Remifentanil 0.5 μg/kg versus placebo at drain removal revealed significant reductions in blood pressure [mean ± SD: 116 ± 19 versus 131 ± 14, P = 0.02] and RR [median (25–75%): 12 (10–13) versus 18 (16–18), P = 0.001]. SpO2 at drain removal was significantly reduced when comparing 1 μg/kg remifentanil versus placebo [median (25–75%): 94 (88–97) versus 97 (96–98), P = 0.049] but not 0.5 μg/kg remifentanil versus placebo. Two patients became apnoeic following 1 μg/kg remifentanil, necessitating respiratory support. Sedation scores in all groups were similar.

Conclusions

Bolus remifentanil at the tested doses delivers excellent analgesia, but 1 μg/kg remifentanil results in respiratory depression. Remifentanil bolus at 0.5 μg/kg is safe and effective for chest drain removal after heart surgery in ICU.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mimnaugh L, Winegar M, Mabrey Y, Davis JE (1999) Sensation experienced during removal of tubes in acute postoperative patients. Appl Nurs Res 12:78–85

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Carson MM, Barton DM, Morrison CC, Tribble CG (1994) Managing pain during mediastinal chest tube removal. Heart Lung 23:500–505

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Paiement B, Boulanger M, Jones CW, Roy M (1979) Intubation and other experiences in cardiac surgery: the consumer’s views. Can Anaesth Soc J 26:173–180

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Singh M, Gopinath R (2005) Topical analgesia for chest tube removal in cardiac patients. J Cardithorac Vasc Anaesth 19:719–722

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Akrofi M, Miller S, Colfar S, Corry PR, Fabri BM, Pullan MD, Russell GN, Fox MA (2005) A randomized comparison of three methods of analgesia for chest drain removal in postcardiac surgical patients. Anaesth Analg 100:205–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Joshi VS, Chauhan S, Kiran U, Bisoi AK, Kapoor PM (2007) Comparison of analgesic efficacy of fentanyl and sufentanil for chest tube removal after cardiac surgery. Ann Cardiac Anaesth 10:42–45

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. McMurray TJ, Bhanumurthy S, Groogan F (1995) Low dose propofol for chest tube removal. Anaesthesia 50:556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bryden FM, McFarlane H, Tunstall ME, Ross JA (1997) Isoflurane for removal of chest drains after cardiac surgery. Anaesthesia 52:169–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Friesner SA, Curry DM, Moddeman GR (2006) Comparison of two pain-management strategies during chest tube removal: relaxation exercise with opioids and opioids alone. Heart Lung 35:269–276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Broscious S (1999) Music; an intervention for pain during chest tube removal after open heart surgery. Am J Crit Care 8:410–415

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Houston S, Jesurum J (1999) The quick relaxation technique. Effect on pain associated with chest tube removal. Appl Nurs Res 12:196–205

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Glass PS, Gan TJ, Howell S (1999) A review of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of Remifentanil. Anaesth Analg 89:S7–S14

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Egan TD, Kern SE, Muir KT, White J (2004) Remifentanil by bolus injection: a safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and age effect in human volunteers. Br J Anaesth 92:335–343

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ramsay MA, Savege TM, Simpson BR, Goodwin R (1974) Controlled sedation with Alphaxalone–Alphadolone. BMJ 11:656–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Carrasco G, Molina R, Costa J, Soler JM, Paniagua J, Cabré LL (1993) Usefulness of sedation scales in ICU. A comparative randomized study in patients sedated with propofol, midazolam or opiates plus benzodiazepines. Intensive Care Med 18(Suppl 2):158

    Google Scholar 

  16. Riker RR, Picard JT, Fraser GL (1999) Prospective evaluation of the sedation–agitation scale for adult critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 27:1325–1329

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Barnard J, Thompson J, Dunning J (2004) Can any intervention effectively reduce the pain associated with chest drain removal. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 3:229–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Xu ZY, Wang X, Si YY, Wu JC, Zuo YX, Xue FS, Liu J (2008) Intravenous remifentanil and propofol for gastroscopy. J Clin Anaesth 5:352–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Johnson KB, Swenson JD, Egan TD, Jarrett R, Johnson M (2002) Midazolam and Remifentanil by bolus injection for intensely stimulating procedures of brief duration: experience with awake laryngoscopy. Anaesth Analg 94:1241–1243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Phillips WJ, Halpin J, Jones J, McKenzie K (2009) Remifentanil for procedural sedation in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 53:163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gaston-Johansson F, Gustafsson M (1990) Rheumatoid arthritis: determination of pain characteristics and comparison of RAI and VAS in its measurement. Pain 41:35–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jensen MP, Miller L, Fisher LD (1998) Assessment of pain during medical procedures: a comparison of three scales. Clin J Pain 14:343–349

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. DeLoach LJ, Higgins MS, Caplan AB, Stiff JL (1998) The visual analog scale in the immediate postoperative period: intrasubject variability and correlation with a numeric scale. Anesth Analg 86:102–106

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gallagher EJ, Bijur PE, Latimer C, Silver W (2002) Reliability and validity of a visual analog scale for acute abdominal pain in the ED. Am J Emerg Med 20:287–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the nursing staff of the Critical Care Departments of the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital and Mater Private Hospital for their help in completing this clinical trial.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland

    Eoin Casey, Aoife Lane, Dinesh Kuriakose, Shane McGeary, Niamh Hayes, Dermot Phelan & Donal Buggy

Authors
  1. Eoin Casey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aoife Lane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dinesh Kuriakose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shane McGeary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Niamh Hayes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dermot Phelan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Donal Buggy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eoin Casey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Casey, E., Lane, A., Kuriakose, D. et al. Bolus remifentanil for chest drain removal in ICU: a randomized double-blind comparison of three modes of analgesia in post-cardiac surgical patients. Intensive Care Med 36, 1380–1385 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-010-1836-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-010-1836-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation