Safety and efficacy of target controlled infusion (Diprifusor) vs manually controlled infusion of propofol for anaesthesia. Propofol anaesthesia via target controlled infusion or manually controlled infusion: effects on the bispectral index as a measure of anaesthetic depth. [Comparison of a propofol-based anesthesia regimen using optimated-target-controlled-infusion (OTCI) and manually-controlled infusion (MCI) technique]. [Comparison of manual infusion of propofol and target-controlled infusion: effectiveness, safety and acceptability]. Target-controlled infusion or manually controlled infusion of propofol in high-risk patients with severely reduced left ventricular function. [Comparison between TCI-TIVA, manual TIVA and balanced anaesthesia for stereotactic biopsy of the brain]. Bispectral index in patients with target-controlled or manually-controlled infusion of propofol. A prospective randomised trial comparing spinal anaesthesia using hyperbaric cinchocaine with general anaesthesia for lower limb vascular surgery. TCI compared with manually controlled infusion of propofol: a multicentre study.
In this multi-centre, randomized trial, we compared the safety and efficacy of Diprifusor TCI with manually controlled infusion (MCI) of propofol for anaesthesia. With approval, 123 adult male and female patients were studied. Firstly, each investigator anaesthetized five patients to familiarize themselves with Diprifusor TCI. In Stage 2, 98 patients were randomized to receive propofol-based anaesthesia via TCI or MCI. Adjuvant drugs, airway management and monitoring were managed at the discretion of the anaesthetist. Results are presented as mean (SD). Induction times were significantly longer [67 (32) vs 54 (17)s] and induction doses were significantly lower [14 (5) vs 16 (4) ml] in the TCI vs the MCI group. Recovery times and total doses were not significantly different. There were statistically but not clinically significant differences in mean arterial blood pressure and heart rate. Quality of anaesthesia and ease of control of anaesthesia were similar. We conclude that Diprifusor TCI and MCI are similar in terms of safety and efficacy. Target controlled infusions (TCI) of propofol allow anaesthetists to target constant blood concentrations and respond promptly to signs of inappropriate anaesthetic depth. Studies comparing propofol TCI with manually controlled infusion (MCI) reported similar control of anaesthesia, but did not use an objective measure of anaesthetic depth. We therefore tested whether the Bispectral Index (BIS), an electroencephalographic (EEG) variable, is more stable during propofol TCI or MCI. Forty patients received midazolam and fentanyl before induction and were randomized to TCI or MCI. Target propofol concentrations in the TCI group were 3 to 8 microg/ml. The MCI group received propofol bolus (approximately 2 mg/kg) and infusion (3 to 10 mg/kg/h). Neuromuscular blockade was achieved with rocuronium. Following endotracheal intubation, nitrous oxide (66%) in oxygen was delivered and propofol infusion and fentanyl boluses were titrated against clinical signs. Blood pressure, heart rate and EEG were recorded, although the anaesthetist was blind to BIS values. The ideal BIS for general anaesthesia was defined as 50. Performance error, absolute performance error, wobble and divergence of BIS, and maximum changes in blood pressure and heart rate were compared using two-sample t-tests or rank-sum tests where appropriate. There was no difference in absolute performance errors during maintenance of anaesthesia with propofol TCI or MCI (23 +/- 11% vs 23 +/- 9%; P=0.97). The two groups did not differ significantly in performance error, wobble, divergence on haemodynamic changes. We conclude that TCI and MCI result in similar depth of anaesthesia and haemodynamic stability when titrated against traditional clinical signs. Propofol anesthesia based on target-controlled-infusion (TCI) has been shown to be superior to a manually-controlled-infusion (MCI) technique. A new optimal-target-controlled-infusion (OTCI) technique enables an individual plasma-targeted adjustment by including the concentration in the effect-compartment. This study compared practicability and costs of the new system with a conventional MCI-based propofol anesthesia regimen.
                In a prospective study, 50 patients scheduled for elective surgery of nose or nasal sinuses were randomly enrolled to receive BIS-controlled anaesthesia (level: 40-55) using either OTCI (n = 25) or MCI (n = 25). Hemodynamics, extubation times and time of awaking, rate and quality of propofol adjustment, total drug requirements, costs, postanaesthetic care unit (PACU) stay, Aldrete and pain scores, and adverse effects (postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), shivering) were recorded.
                Demographics, hemodynamics, and perioperative data including extubation times were comparable for both study groups. Propofol consumption was similar within the first 60 min for both groups, thereafter, significantly less propofol in the OTCI group (5.03 mg/kg/h) than the MCI group (5.79 mg/kg/h) was used. Costs for propofol was significantly reduced with OTCI (0.2 vs. 0.23 Cent/anaesthesia minute/kg), the administration of other anaesthetics (fentanyl, remifentanil, cis-atracurium) did not differ between the groups. The number of infusion adjustments to BIS values were not significantly different.
                The new OTCI-system is a safe and easily controllable technique. The obvious advantage of this infusion system appears to be a reduction in propofol consumption and direct drug costs for anaesthesia lasting longer than 60 min. Diprifusor TCI is a newly developed target-controlled system for the infusion of propofol. Purpose of this study is to evaluate the acceptability, efficacy and safety of Diprifusor TCI in comparison with the manually controlled technique.
                This multicentre, randomised, parallel group study was carried out in 160 patients undergoing surgical procedures of 10 min to 4 h duration in 8 centres. In each centre 20 male or female patients, aged > or = 18 years, ASA I-III were randomised to treatment with either Diprifusor TCI (TCI group--80 patients) or manually controlled infusion (MI group--80 patients). Assessments included hemodynamics; adverse events, including accidents, actual or possible; recovery times; anesthetist ratings of quality of induction and maintenance, and of ease of control and use of technique. Ratings were summed up in a global quality score (study end-point).
                Induction doses were significantly lower (median values 1.4 vs 1.9 mg/kg) and maintenance infusion rate significantly higher (median values 10.2 vs 8.8 mg/kg/h) in the TCI group; anesthetists ratings obtained maximum scores in most patients of either group, but more frequently in the TCI group, with significant differences for ease of control (good 91.2% TCI vs 74.7% IM; adequate 8.8 vs 21.5%; poor 0 vs 3.8%), and of use of technique (good 91.2% TCI vs 60.8% IM; adequate 8.8 vs 39.2%); the global quality score showed a significant advantage for the TCI system (median value 12 vs 11).
                The TCI technique is effective and safe, and has a better acceptability than the manually controlled infusion technique. To compare hemodynamics, time to extubation, and costs of target-controlled infusion (TCI) with manually controlled infusion (MCI) of propofol in high-risk cardiac surgery patients.
                Prospective, randomized.
                Major community university-affiliated hospital.
                Twenty patients undergoing first-time implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator with severely reduced left ventricular function (left ventricular ejection fraction <30%).
                Anesthesia was performed using remifentanil, 0.2 to 0.3 microg/kg/min, and propofol. Propofol was used as TCI (plasma target concentration, 2 to 3 microg x mL; n = 10) or MCI (2.5 to 3.5 mg/kg/hr; n = 10).
                Hemodynamics were measured at 6 data points: T1, before anesthesia; T2, after intubation; T3, after skin incision; T4, after first defibrillation; T5, after third defibrillation; and T6, after extubation. There were no significant hemodynamic differences between the 2 groups. Dobutamine was required to maintain cardiac index >2 L/min/m(2) in significantly more patients of the TCI group than of the MCI group. Mean dose of propofol was higher in the TCI patients (6.0 +/- 1.0 mg/kg/hr) than in the MCI patients (3.0 +/- 0.4 mg/kg/hr) (p < 0.05), whereas doses of remifentanil did not differ. Time to extubation was significantly shorter in the MCI (11.9 +/- 2.4 min) versus the TCI group (15.6 +/- 6.8 min). Costs were significantly lower in MCI patients (34.73 dollars) than in TCI patients (44.76 dollars).
                In patients with severely reduced left ventricular function, TCI and MCI of propofol in combination with remifentanil showed similar hemodynamics. TCI patients needed inotropic support more often than MCI-treated patients. Although extubation time was longer in TCI patients and costs were higher, both anesthesia techniques can be recommended for early extubation after implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator.
                Copyright 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company. Total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) is increasingly used in diagnostic surgery such as stereotactic biopsy of the brain. TIVA could lead to a faster recovery of cerebral function, which may lead to a better behavior and advantages in the postoperative management. The aim of this prospective, single-blind study was to compare the hemodynamics, the postoperative recovery period, the side-effects and the need for additional cardiovascular medication during and after the operation between the three study groups.
                After giving informed consent and approval by the ethical committee of our hospital, 51 patients (ASA I and II) undergoing stereotactic biopsy of a brain tumor were randomized to receive either propofol via the TCI-system (group 1: TCI-TIVA), propofol by a manual technique (group 2: MAN-TIVA) or methohexitone-sevoflurane (group 3: BAL-SEVO). Remifentanil was used as the analgetic component in all groups. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate und transcutaneous oxygen saturation were noted before and after induction and before and after the end of anaesthesia. The time until return of complete orientation relative to person, location and time were measured. The patients' ranking of their satisfaction with the anaesthesia was questioned 60 min and 24 hours after the end of the procedure (VAS). Undesirable side-effects (i. e. PONV, shivering, pain, dysphoria, tiredness) were noted, whenever they occurred. The number of hemodynamic interventions by the anaesthesiologist was counted, and the total doses of remifentanil and propofol were quoted. Depth of anaesthesia was monitored by using a BIS-system, a range between 40 and 50 was thought to be adequate. Besides this, the total doses of remifentanil, propofol and sevoflurane were ruled out and the costs of the three regimens were ranked.
                Heart rate dropped markedly in all groups with a maximum in the TIVA-collective. Systolic and diastolic pressure also fell in the groups. In the SEVO-group, the difference was statistically significant only at the end of anaesthesia. After extubation, the three groups reached their hemodynamic starting-point with a slight overshoot in the SEVO-group. The number of required hemodynamic interventions was two (TCI-TIVA) vs. 7 (MAN-TIVA) vs. 8 (BAL-SEVO) in each group, respectively. The difference scarcely failed to get significance. The remifentanil requirements were similar between the collectives, group 1 needed more propofol per time than group 2. The number of side-effects was very little after the different regimens. There were no differences with regard to the other measured parameters between the groups. The use of TCI-TIVA was more expensive than manual TIVA (18,85 euro vs. 12,50 euro). Surprisingly, balanced anaesthesia using Sevoflurane was the most expensive method during the first hour, mainly due to the use of methohexitone as the induction agent (23,90 euro).
                Each of the three techniques compared in our study is suitable for anaesthesia in diagnostic neurosurgery. Since fast recovery of vigilance is important to justify the neurological outcome, none of the methods seems to be superior to the others. The hemodynamics were largely stable with a strong trend towards minor necessity for hemodynamic intervention in the TCI-TIVA group. This is also the best method from the subjective point of view of the anaesthesiologist due to the easy handling and the low number of interventions. The use of newer TCI-systems (e. g. fm-controller, Braun, Melsungen) not operating with special application syringes will cheapen TCI-TIVA. In this prospective, randomized study we compared bispectral index (BIS), hemodynamics, time to extubation, and the costs of target-controlled infusion (TCI) and manually-controlled infusion (MCI) of propofol. Forty patients undergoing first-time implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator were included. Anesthesia was performed with remifentanil (0.2-0.3 micro g. kg(-1). min(-1)) and propofol. Propofol was used as TCI (plasma target concentration, 2.5-3.5 micro g/mL; n = 20) or MCI (3.0-4.0 mg. kg(-1). h(-1); n = 20). BIS, heart rate, and arterial blood pressure were measured at six data points: T1, before anesthesia; T2, after intubation; T3, after skin incision; T4, after first defibrillation; T5, after third defibrillation; and T6, after extubation. There were no significant hemodynamic differences between the two groups. BIS was significantly lower at T3 and T4 in the TCI group than in the MCI group. The mean dose of propofol was larger in TCI patients (5.8 +/- 1.4 mg. kg(-1). h(-1)) than in the MCI patients (3.7 +/- 0.6 mg. kg(-1). h(-1)) (P < 0.05), whereas doses of remifentanil did not differ. Time to extubation did not differ between the two groups (TCI, 13.7 +/- 5.3 min; MCI, 12.3 +/- 3.5 min). One patient in the MCI group had signs of intraoperative awareness without explicit memory after first defibrillation (BIS before shock, 49; after shock, 83). Costs were significantly less in the MCI group (34.83 US dollars) than in the TCI group (39.73 US dollars). BIS failed to predict the adequacy of anesthesia for the next painful stimulus.
                In this prospective, randomized study, bispectral index (BIS), hemodynamics, time to extubation, and costs of target-controlled infusion (TCI) and manually-controlled infusion of propofol were compared. TCI increased the amount of propofol used. BIS failed to predict the adequacy of anesthesia for the next painful stimulus. One hundred and one patients were randomly allocated to have their peripheral vascular surgery performed under general anaesthesia (51 patients) or spinal anaesthesia (50 patients). Intraoperative haemodynamic changes were markedly different between the two groups with a higher incidence of hypotension in the spinal group (72% vs 31%) and a higher incidence of hypertension in the general anaesthesia group (22% vs 0%). Blood loss was significantly less in the spinal group (560, SD 340, ml vs 792, SD 440, ml). Postoperatively three patients from the general anaesthesia group died from causes unrelated to the anaesthesia, and one had a myocardial infarct. Two patients in the spinal group had myocardial infarcts, both had been treated for bradycardia and hypotension intraoperatively, and one died. There was a significantly higher incidence of postoperative chest infection in the general anaesthesia group (33% vs 16%). There was no significant difference between the groups in the incidence of postoperative confusion, or lower limb amputation rate or need for further surgery prior to hospital discharge. This prospective, randomised multicentre study was designed to determine the clinical profile of 'Diprifusor' target controlled infusion compared with manually controlled infusion of propofol in 562 patients, aged 18-85 years, in a range of surgical procedures in 29 centres. The dose of propofol required for loss of consciousness was statistically significantly lower in the target controlled infusion group [1.69 (0.50) vs. 2.31 (0.75) mg.kg-1, p < 0.001] but the overall rate of propofol administration was slightly, but significantly, higher [12.1 (5.1) vs. 11.0 (6.0) mg.kg-1.h-1, p < 0.05]. The target concentration (CT) required for induction decreased with increasing age and ASA class, with premedication and with the administration of an opioid before induction. However, the amount of opioid given did not influence the CT required for induction, but enhanced the haemodynamic effects of propofol induction in both groups. Most investigators expressed an overall preference for target controlled infusion (93%) and found it easier to use (76%). Despite the lack of experience of most investigators in using target controlled infusion, the clinical profiles of both propofol administrations were similar. Data suggest that the clinical profile of target controlled infusion may be improved with experience, for example by more active titration of CT to effect. Target controlled infusion may well become the preferred choice for anaesthetists.
This systematic review does not provide sufficient evidence for us to make firm recommendations about the use of TCI versus MCI in clinical anaesthetic practice.