Manual versus target-controlled infusions of propofol. [Comparison between TCI-TIVA, manual TIVA and balanced anaesthesia for stereotactic biopsy of the brain]. [Comparison of manual infusion of propofol and target-controlled infusion: effectiveness, safety and acceptability]. Safety and efficacy of target controlled infusion (Diprifusor) vs manually controlled infusion of propofol for anaesthesia. [Comparison of a propofol-based anesthesia regimen using optimated-target-controlled-infusion (OTCI) and manually-controlled infusion (MCI) technique]. Comparison of propofol administration techniques for sedation during monitored anesthesia care. Comparison of computer-controlled administration of propofol with two manually controlled infusion techniques. TCI compared with manually controlled infusion of propofol: a multicentre study. A comparison of target- and manually controlled infusion propofol and etomidate/desflurane anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. Target-controlled versus manually-controlled infusion of propofol for direct laryngoscopy and bronchoscopy. [Effects of infusion methods of propofol on quality of sedation and ease of sedation control during gynecological laparotomy under spinal anesthesia]. Manual compared with target-controlled infusion of propofol. Target-controlled infusion or manually controlled infusion of propofol in high-risk patients with severely reduced left ventricular function. Bispectral index in patients with target-controlled or manually-controlled infusion of propofol. Propofol anaesthesia via target controlled infusion or manually controlled infusion: effects on the bispectral index as a measure of anaesthetic depth.
Target-controlled infusion systems have been shown to result in the administration of larger doses of propofol, which may result in delayed emergence and recovery from anaesthesia. The aim of this study was to investigate if this was due to a difference in the depth of hypnosis (using the bispectral index monitoring) between the manual and target controlled systems of administration. Fifty unpremedicated patients undergoing elective surgery were randomly allocated to have their anaesthesia maintained with manual or target-controlled propofol infusion schemes. In both groups, the rate of propofol administration was adjusted according to standard clinical criteria while bispectral index scores were recorded by an observer not involved in the delivery of anaesthesia. The total dose of propofol used was higher in the target controlled group (mean 9.9 [standard deviation 1.6] compared with 8.1 [1.0] mg.kg(-1).h(-1) in the manual group [p < 0.0001]). The times to emergence and recovery end-points were comparable between the two groups. The difference in the total dosage of propofol was mainly due to higher rate of propofol administration in the first 30 min in the target controlled infusion group. The bispectral index scores were lower in the target controlled group during this time, being significantly so over the first 15 min of anaesthesia. We conclude that propofol administration by a target controlled infusion system results in the administration of higher doses of propofol and lower bispectral index values mainly in the initial period of anaesthesia. 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. 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. 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. 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. Sixty-three outpatients undergoing breast biopsy procedures with local anesthesia were randomly assigned to receive propofol by intermittent bolus injections (n = 21), a conventional syringe infusion pump (n = 21), or a target-controlled infusion (TCI) device (n = 21) for intraoperative sedation. In the first two groups, an initial intravenous (IV) bolus of propofol (0.3 mg/kg) was administered and an attempt was made to maintain the sedation level at an Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) score of 3 or 4 with either intermittent bolus injections of propofol (10 mg) or a variable-rate infusion (25-100 micrograms.kg-1.min-1). In the TCI group, the initial target concentration of propofol was set at 2 micrograms/mL and the target concentration was adjusted between 1 and 4 micrograms/mL in an attempt to maintain an OAA/S score of 3 or 4. Recovery was assessed using clinical criteria, visual analog scales (VAS), and the digit-symbol substitution test (DSST). The overall quality of sedation, operating conditions, and clinical recovery profiles were similar in all three treatment groups. The anesthesiologist had to intervene more frequently in the intermittent bolus injection group than in the two infusion groups. We conclude that the use of an infusion technique may allow the anesthesiologist more time for monitoring the patient by decreasing the number of interventions necessary to administer supplemental doses of the sedative medication during the operation. However, the cost of the IV drug delivery system may become an increasingly important factor in the future. Ninety women were studied in order to compare dose requirements and quality of anaesthesia between target-controlled infusion and two manually controlled infusion schemes for propofol administration: group I received target-controlled infusion for induction (4 micrograms.ml-1 target blood concentration, increased by 2 micrograms.ml-1 after 3 min of consciousness not lost), groups II and III received an induction bolus of propofol at infusion rates of 1200 or 600 ml.h-1, respectively, until loss of consciousness. Anaesthesia was maintained with propofol target-controlled infusion in group 1 or by constant rate infusion in the other two groups. Computer simulations were used to calculate blood and effect-site propofol concentrations. Mean induction times (SD) were 78 (65)s in group I versus 51 (10)s and 62 (12)s in groups II and III, respectively (p < 0.05 between groups II and III). Mean induction doses were: 1.31 (0.44), 2.74 (0.56) and 1.77 (0.43) mg.kg-1 and mean maintenance doses were 13.4 (3.55), 9.32 (1.72) and 9.97 (1.53) mg.kg-1 h-1 in groups I, II and III, respectively (p < 0.05 between all groups). There was a lower incidence of apnoea in group I than in groups II and III. There were no significant differences between the groups in other objective parameters of anaesthetic quality studied. Computer simulations showed an "overshoot' in propofol blood and effect-site concentration with manual induction and significantly higher maintenance levels with target-controlled infusion. 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. Elderly patients have a higher risk of developing adverse drug reactions during anesthesia, especially anesthesia affecting cardiovascular performance. In this prospective randomized study we compared quality of induction, hemodynamics, and recovery in elderly patients scheduled for hip fracture surgery and receiving either etomidate/desflurane (ETO/DES) or target-controlled (TCI) or manually controlled (MAN) propofol infusion for anesthesia. Sixteen patients were anesthetized with ETO (0.4 mg/kg) followed by DES titrated from an initial end-tidal concentration of 2.5%. Eighteen patients received propofol TCI at an initial plasma concentration of 1 microg/mL and titrated upwards by 0.5-microg/mL steps. Fifteen patients received a bolus induction of propofol 1 mg/kg over 60 s followed by an infusion initially set at 5 mg . kg(-1) . h(-1). All received a bolus (20 microg/kg) followed by an infusion of 0.4 microg . kg(-1) . min(-1) alfentanil. According to hemodynamics, concentrations of DES or propofol (TCI group) and propofol infusion rate (MAN group) were respectively adjusted by a step of 20% and 50%. In the TCI and ETO/DES groups, the time spent at a mean arterial blood pressure within 15% and 30% of baseline values was more than 60% and 80% of anesthesia time, whereas in the MAN group it was <30% and 60%, respectively. In the MAN group more anesthetic drug adjustments were recorded (6.4 +/- 2.8 versus 2.5 +/- 1.2 [ETO/DES] and 2.6 +/- 1 [TCI]). TCI improves the time course of propofol's hemodynamic effects in elderly patients. Few studies have compared the clinical profile of target-controlled infusions of propofol with that of manually-controlled infusions. Fifty-four ASA physical status I or II patients scheduled for an elective otorhinolaryngology endoscopy performed under general anesthesia with spontaneous ventilation were enrolled in this prospective randomized study to compare the clinical outcome of such administrations. Before induction, all patients received a single alfentanil bolus dose (10 microg/kg). Propofol administration was adapted to maintain absence of movement, hemodynamic stability, and efficient spontaneous ventilation. When compared with the Manually-Controlled Infusion group, in the Target-Controlled Infusion group there were fewer movements at insertion of the laryngoscope (14.8% vs. 44.4%), improved hemodynamic stability (largest variations of mean arterial blood pressure <10% of control values, versus 20%), fewer episodes of apnea, and less respiratory acidosis after endoscopy (pH = 7.37 +/- 0.05 and PaCO(2) = 50 +/- 7 mm Hg versus pH = 7.28 +/- 0.06 and PaCO(2) = 58 +/- 9 mm Hg); the recovery was also shorter (time to opening eyes or verbal response, 4.6 +/- 2.0 min and 6.8 +/- 2.5 min versus 10.8 +/- 7.3 min and 15.7 +/- 7.1 min). Propofol consumption was comparable in the two groups. Targeting the effect-site concentration improved the time course of the propofol drug effect during direct laryngoscopy performed during spontaneous ventilation when compared with manual infusion.
                This study compares the clinical profile of propofol anesthesia for direct laryngoscopy with spontaneous ventilation when the drug is administered either as a manually controlled infusion or by targeting the effect-site concentration through a target-controlled infusion (TCI) device. TCI improves the time course of propofol effects. Twenty patients were prospectively and randomly studied to investigate effects of infusion methods of propofol on quality of sedation and ease of sedation control during gynecological laparotomy under spinal anesthesia. After establishment of spinal anesthesia, patients were randomly assigned to one of the following two groups, i.e. conventional continuous infusion group (Cont group) and target-controlled infusion group (TCI group). In the Cont group, propofol was started at a rate of 6 mg.kg-1.hr-1 until response to command disappeared. In the TCI group, the initial target concentration of propofol was set at 1.2 micrograms.ml-1 until response to command disappeared. Thereafter infusion rate or target concentration was adjusted to maintain Mackenzie's score at 3 or 4. Predicted concentration of propofol was 1.2 +/- 0.01 micrograms.ml-1 at induction of sedation and 1.2 +/- 0.11 micrograms.ml-1 during stable sedation in the TCI group. Satisfaction VAS, anxiety VAS, discomfort VAS, sedation score and times of changing infusion condition were similar in both groups. Total dose of propofol was significantly less in the TCI group. In conclusion, quality of sedation and ease of control of sedation were comparable in both groups and continuous infusion method is simple. We studied 160 ASA I-II patients, anaesthetized with propofol by infusion, using either a manually controlled or target-controlled infusion system. Patients were anaesthetized by eight consultant anaesthetists who had little or no previous experience of the use of propofol by infusion. In addition to propofol, patients received temazepam premedication, a single dose of fentanyl and 67% nitrous oxide in oxygen. Each consultant anaesthetized 10 patients in sequential fashion with each system. Use of the target-controlled infusion resulted in more rapid induction of anaesthesia and allowed earlier insertion of a laryngeal mask airway. There was a tendency towards less movement in response to the initial surgical stimulus and significantly less movement during the remainder of surgery. Significantly more propofol was administered during both induction and maintenance of anaesthesia with the target-controlled system. This was associated with significantly increased end-tidal carbon dioxide measurements during the middle period of maintenance only, but recovery from anaesthesia was not significantly prolonged in the target-controlled group. With the exception of a clinically insignificant difference in heart rate, haemodynamic variables were similar in the two groups. Six of the eight anaesthetists found the target-controlled system easier to use, and seven would use the target-controlled system in preference to a manually controlled infusion. Anaesthetists without prior experience of propofol infusion anaesthesia quickly became familiar with both manual and target-controlled techniques, and expressed a clear preference for the target-controlled system. 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. 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. 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.
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.