Comparison of the pharmacokinetic profiles of three molecules of remifentanil in terms of hemodynamic response in laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation maneuvers
Introduction: Several remifentanil products are commercialized in Colombia while these have never been compared in a clinical setting.
Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the pharmacodynamic profile of the branded molecule of remifentanil (group O: Glaxo SmithKline Manufacturing S.P.A.) and two unbranded molecules (group A: Laboratorios Chalver de Colombia S.A. and group B: Instituto Biológico Contemporaneo, Argentina) registered in Colombia.
Methods: We carried out a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. The branded molecule of remifentanil (group O, n = 29) was compared with the two unbranded molecules (group A, n = 29; group B, n = 32) during anesthetic induction and tracheal intubation in adult patients ASA I without predictors for difficult airway. The target controlled infusion (TCI) doses evaluated were 6, 8 and 10 ng/ml with the Minto model. Induction was complemented with propofol 5 mcg/ml (TCI) with the Schneider model and rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg. The primary outcome was defined as the difference in mean arterial pressure and heart rate pre-intubation (TCI equilibrium) and post-intubation (maximum measurement within 5 minutes).
Results: A similar pharmacodinamic profile was observed between the studied remifentanil molecules. The differences in the change in heart rate were 1.27 (95% CI: -3.11;5.67) with molecule A and 1.40 (95% CI: -2.65;5.46) with molecule B against molecule O (beats/minute). The differences in the change in mean arterial pressure were 1 (95% CI: -4.81;6.81) for molecule A and 1.82 (95% CI: -4.08;7.74) for molecule B against molecule O (mmHg). There was a case of arterial hypotension in each group.
Conclusion: The results suggest that from a pharmacodynamic point of view branded and unbranded remifentanil molecules are similar for laryngoscopy/intubation with TCI doses 6, 8 and 10 ng/ml.
2. Miller DR, Martineau RJ, O'Brien H, Hull KA, Oliveras L, Hindmarsh T, et al. Effects of alfentanil on the hemodynamic and catecholamine response to tracheal intubation. Anesth Analg. 1993;76:1040-6.
3. Thompson JP, Hall AP, Russell J, Cagney B, Rowbotham DJ. Effect of remifentanil on the haemodynamic response to orotracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth. 1998;80:467-9.
4. Ko SH, Kim DC, Han YJ, Song HS. Small-dose fentanyl: optimal time of injection for blunting the circulatory responses to tracheal intubation. Anesth Analg. 1998;86:658-61.
5. Kazama T, Ikeda K, Morita K. Reduction by fentanyl of the Cp50 values of propofol and hemodynamic responses to various noxious stimuli. Anesthesiology. 1997;87:213-27.
6. Casati A, Fanelli G, Albertin A, Deni F, Danelli G, Grifoni F, et al. Small doses of remifentanil or sufentanil for blunting cardiovascular changes induced by tracheal intubation: a double-blind comparison. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2001;18:108-12.
7. Albertin A, Casati A, Federica L, Roberto V, Travaglini V, Bergonzi P, et al. The effect-site concentration of remifentanil blunting cardiovascular responses to tracheal intubation and skin incision during bispectral index-guided propofol anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2005;101:125-30 [table of contents .
8. Glass PS, Hardman D, Kamiyama Y, Quill TJ, Marton G, Donn KH, et al. Preliminary pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of an ultra-short-acting opioid: remifentanil (GI87084B). Anesth Analg. 1993;77:1031-40.
9. Servin FS, Billard V. Remifentanil and other opioids. Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2008:283-311.
10. Moerman AT, Herregods LL, De Vos MM, Mortier EP, Struys MM. Manual versus target-controlled infusion remifentanil administration in spontaneously breathing patients. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:828-34.
11. Egan TD. Target-controlled drug delivery: progress toward an intravenous "vaporizer" and automated anesthetic administration. Anesthesiology. 2003;99:1214-9.
12. Gauzit R, Lakdhari M. Generic antibiotic drugs: is effectiveness guaranteed? Med Mal Infect. 2012.
13. Garcia MM, Angelini MC, Thomas T, Lenz K, Jeffrey P. Implementation of an opioid management initiative by a state Medicaid program. J Manag Care Pharm. 2014;20:447-54.
14. Estévez C, Francisco E. Estudio de bioequivalencia: enfoque metodológico y aplicaciones prácticas en la evaluación de medicamentos genéricos. Rev Méd Urug. 2000;16:133-43.
15. Estévez F, Parrillo S, Cedrés M. Estudios de bioequivalencia in vivo para demostrar la intercambiabilidad de medicamentos. Rev Méd Urug. 2012;28:165-73.
16. Tafur BLA, Flórez EL. Aplicación práctica de los nomogramas de remifentanil y propofol. Rev Colomb Anestesiol. 2009;37:311-9.
17. Yeganeh N, Roshani B, Latifi H, Almasi A. Comparison of target-controlled infusion of sufentanil and remifentanil in blunting hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation. J Inj Violence Res. 2013;5:101-7.
18. Rao MH, Venkatraman A, Mallleswari R. Comparison of intubating conditions between rocuronium with priming and without priming: randomized and double-blind study. Indian J Anaesth. 2011;55:494-8.
19. Guignard B, Menigaux C, Dupont X, Fletcher D, Chauvin M. The effect of remifentanil on the bispectral index change and hemodynamic responses after orotracheal intubation. Anesth Analg. 2000;90:161-7.
20. Helfman SM, Gold MI, DeLisser EA, Herrington CA. Which drug prevents tachycardia and hypertension associated with tracheal intubation: lidocaine, fentanyl, or esmolol? Anesth Analg. 1991;72:4S2-6.
The publisher (Sociedad Colombiana de Anestesiología y Reanimación S.C.A.R.E.) retains copyright for the published articles.
Creative Commons License
Articles published by Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology are licensed under the Creative Commons 4.0 license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs: CC BY-NC-ND.