Abstract
Objective
To assess the feasibility and safety of remifentanil-based sedation during noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in patients with NIV failure.
Design and setting
Prospective clinical investigation in a 16-bed intensive care unit of a university hospital in France.
Patients
Thirteen patients in NIV failure due to discomfort and/or refusal to continue this ventilatory support: 10 with acute respiratory failure and 3 with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure.
Intervention
Patients were administered methylene blue and were sedated (Ramsay scale 2–3) by a continuous perfusion of remifentanil during NIV. Cardiorespiratory and ventilatory parameters, blood gas analysis, and adverse events were prospectively recorded.
Measurements and results
The 13 patients received a total of 125 NIV sessions, totaling 1200 h, of NIV under remifentanil-based sedation (mean remifentanil dose 0.1 ± 0.03 μg/kg per minute). Three patients also required propofol. PaO2/FIO2 ratio increased from 134 ± 69 to 187 ± 43 mmHg after 1 h. In patients with acute respiratory failure respiratory rate decreased from 34 ± 12 per minute before remifentanil to 25 ± 4 per minute after 1 h. In the three patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure PaCO2 decreased from 69 ± 7 to 42 ± 5 mmHg. Four patients required endotracheal intubation without aspiration pneumonia. Twelve of the 13 patients left the ICU.
Conclusion
This pilot study shows that remifentanil-based sedation is safe and effective in the treatment of NIV failure due to low tolerance.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Recent studies have shown that noninvasive ventilation (NIV) reduces the risk of pneumonia [1], barotraumas [2] and even mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure [3, 4], particularly in immunosuppressed patients [5]. Girou et al. [6] recently demonstrated that implementing routine use of NIV in critically ill patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or severe cardiopulmonary edema is associated with improved survival and reduction in nosocomial infections. Despite the advantages of NIV in critically ill patients this procedure is associated with a large number of failures, including patient refusal to continue the often uncomfortable sessions [7]. Analgesia-based sedation is provided for invasive ventilation, to increase tolerance of the interface and respirator. In a recent study Conti et al. [8] have shown that the continuous infusion of sufentanil may be used as a single sedative agent, allowing mitigation of patient discomfort and the obtaining of the desired level of awake sedation, with no significant effects on respiratory drive, minute volume, respiratory frequency, respiratory pattern, blood gases, or hemodynamics [8]. However, sufentanil is not a short-acting opioid [9], and it is metabolized by the liver. Its long-term infusion may cause accumulation phenomena, which may delay patient recovery and augment the risk of respiratory depression [10]. Due to the lack of protection of the respiratory tract and unpredictable and/or delayed recovery in patients under discontinuous ventilation, sufentanil-based sedation is both difficult and dangerous for NIV [9, 11].
Remifentanil is a newly developed anilidopiperidine opioid with pharmacodynamic properties similar to those of other opioids but a unique pharmacokinetic profile. Remifentanil is a potent, short-acting opioid with a μ-selectivity. Its metabolism is not influenced by hepatic or renal dysfunction, being metabolized by nonspecific blood and tissue esterases into a pharmacology-inactive metabolite. The elimination half-life of remifentanil is less than 10 min, which is independent of infusion duration [9, 12]. Remifentanil is indicated for use during the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia and for the administration of analgesia in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients for up to 3 days [13]. Remifentanil has an onset of action of about 1 min and quickly achieves a steady state. These characteristics make remifentanil very easy to titrate to effect and allow administration of opiates without concerns about accumulation and unpredictable and/or delayed recovery, possibly even in NIV [14].
The purpose of this study was to assess, for the first time, feasibility, and safety of remifentanil-based sedation during NIV in patients with NIV failure.
Patients and methods
Patient selection
The study cohort consisted of 13 patients with acute respiratory failure (without congestive heart failure) under NIV for an 8-month period (mean age 51 ± 22 years; 4 women, 9 men; mean Simplified Acute Physiology Score II 32 ± 10; Fig. 1). Inclusion criteria were NIV failure due to patient refusal to continue the NIV sessions (due to discomfort), relapsing hypoxemia upon interruption of the NIV, and marked agitation. Exclusion criteria were NIV failure due to impossibility of managing copious secretions, severely decreased consciousness (Glasgow Coma Scale score less than 9) not caused by hypercapnia, absence of improved gas exchange after 30 min of NIV, severe hemodynamic instability despite fluid challenge and use of vasoactive agents (systolic arterial blood pressure less than 70 mmHg), respiratory arrest, high digestive tract hemorrhage, glucose 6 phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (contraindication to methylene blue), known allergy to remifentanil or propofol, incomprehension of the study or refusal to participate, or inclusion in another research protocol. Five patients presented with acute kidney failure, including one on continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration, and six were immunocompromised. Their reasons for admission to the intensive care unit, and the causes of respiratory distress and NIV failure are listed in Table 1. Each of patients had a score on the Glasgow Coma Scale higher than 11 at study inclusion. Ten patients presented with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, defined as a PaO2/FIO2 ratio less than 300 mmHg without left cardiac decompensation. Three presented with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF) with pH below 7.3 and PaCO2 above 50 mmHg. One patient (no. 4) died (after the end of the study) due to care limitation after another stroke. The experimental protocol was approved by our institutional review board for human subjects. Written informed consent was obtained from each study patient or next of kin.
Study design
Patients were administered a methylene blue capsule, as a marker of regurgitation, either by mouth or through a gastric tube; if necessary, the gastric tube was blocked throughout the NIV session. Remifentanil (0.025 μg kg−1 min−1) was infused through a dedicated line of the central catheter. The goal was to achieve sedation between 2 and 3 on the Ramsay scale [15] by increasing the infusion rate by 0.025 μg kg−1 min−1 every minute to a maximum of 0.15 μg kg−1 min−1. If the required level of sedation was not obtained, propofol was administered at a dose of 10 mg/h, increasing 10 mg/h every minute to a maximum of 50 mg/h. Once the correct sedation level was achieved, the NIV session was initiated in pressure-support ventilation (without mandatory cycles) on an Evita 2 Dura ventilator (Dräger, Lübeck, Germany) with heated humidifiers [16, 17] (Fisher & Paykel, MR 730, Panmure, New Zealand). When a nasogastric tube was used for patient care, it was placed on a specific device (Mertro seal, Rusch, Germany) to limit air lick during NIV. The 13 patients received a total of 125 NIV sessions lasting an average of 9 ± 2 h (range 3–20) for a total of 1200 h (Fig. 2), without clinical gastric dilation, vomiting, or facial skin lesions. The mean number of sessions per patient was 10 ± 8 (range 1–26).
The ventilator was set according to the following protocol [5]. After the mask (Vmask 7600, Rusch, Germany) was secured, the level of pressure support was progressively increased and adjusted for each patient to obtain an expired tidal volume (Vt) of 7–10 ml/kg body weight and a respiratory rate of fewer than 35 breaths per minute. Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was repeatedly increased by 2 cmH2O to a maximum of 10 cmH2O until the FIO2 requirement was 65% or less. For AHRF in patients with COPD, PEEP was set to ovoid intrinsic PEEP. The diagnosis of COPD was based on clinical history, physical examination, and prior pulmonary function tests.
Adverse events, including gastric dilation, vomiting, and facial skin and eye lesions, were recorded every hour. Five minutes before the end of the first NIV session, after FIO2 was increased to 100%, a nasotracheal fibroscopy was performed to search for traces of methylene blue in the upper respiratory tract and trachea (BF-TE2, Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). This fibroscopy was performed at the end of the first session, after increase FIO2 at 100%. During other sessions fibroscopy was performed only if inhalation was suspected or after endotracheal intubation (ETI). Sedation was interrupted, and at recovery (eyes opening and shaking hand to verbal command) patients were separated from the ventilator. Blood gas analysis was performed before the beginning, 1 h after beginning, and at the end of each NIV session. Respiratory parameters, including respiratory rate (RR), expiratory Vt, inspiratory Vt, minute ventilation, PEEP and SpO2, and hemodynamic parameters, including heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure, were measured continuously. All patients had an arterial catheter for clinical management. Remifentanil and propofol doses were recorded every 15 min and at every change in administration rate.
The predetermined criteria for ETI were as follows: failure to maintain a PaO2/FIO2 ratio greater than 85, development of conditions requiring ETI to protect the airways (e.g., seizure disorder or vomiting); development of copious tracheal secretions; increase in the partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide accompanied by a pH of 7.30 or less; severe hemodynamic instability, defined as a systolic blood pressure of less than 70 mmHg; or evidence on electrocardiography of ischemia or clinically significant ventricular arrhythmias. In the case of ETI a tracheal fibroscopy was performed (from the trachea to the right and left mean bronchi and through the endotracheal tube), after the hemodynamic and ventilatory stabilization period, to search for methylene blue.
Statistical analysis
All data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. The hemodynamic and ventilatory variations at the various time points were subjected to analysis of variance with repeat measurements and a post-hoc test. A p value less 0.05 was taken to indicate statistical significance.
Results
Patients' anthropometric and respiratory characteristics during the first NIV session are summarized in Table 2. During all the sessions, we observed no decrease in blood pressure or heart rate greater than 20% from baseline. Respiratory rate decreased from 34 ± 12/min before remifentanil infusion to 25 ± 4/min (p < 0.01) after 1 h of NIV but never dropped below 20/min. The mean PaO2/FIO2 ratio increased from baseline 134 ± 69 to 187 ± 43 mmHg after 1 h of NIV (p < 0.05) and to 196 ± 52 mmHg at the end of the sessions (NS). In hypoxemic patients PaCO2 increased from 33 ± 22 to 36 ± 21 mmHg after 1 h to 39 ± 8 mmHg at the end of the session (NS), and pH decreased from 7.49 ± 0.07 to 7.43 ± 0.07 at 1 h to 7.40 ± 0.03 at the end. In the three patients with AHRF PaCO2 decreased from 69 ± 7 to 42 ± 5 mmHg after 1 h (p < 0.001), and pH increased from 7.21 + 0.02 to 7.33 ± 0.01 (p < 0.001).
The mean remifentanil dose was 0.1 ± 0.03 μg/kg per minute. Three patients (nos. 1, 3, and 9) also required 0.9 ± 0.3 mg/kg per hour propofol. Four patients required ETI during the study (median 11 h), all during the first NIV session and all due to an inability to maintain a PaO2/FIO2 ratio above 85 mmHg; bronchial fibroscopy through an endotracheal tube detected no methylene blue. No methylene blue was detected by fibroscopy in the nine other patients at the end of the first NIV session, and no inhalation was suspected. We also did not observe significant desaturation (SpO2 < 95%) during fibroscopy. No patient presented with confirmed or suspected aspiration pneumonia during follow-up in the hospital.
Discussion
Since the pilot study by Rocker et al. [18] NIV has been considered as an alternative in the management of acute lung injury. Ten years ago they reported the use of sedation to allow NIV in hypoxemic patients. Physiological studies on the effects of analgesia-based sedation on respiratory mechanics [8, 19, 20] and new opioids with adapted pharmacokinetics can now allow NIV while patients are under sedation.
We show here that remifentanil-based sedation during NIV is effective and safe in selected patients with NIV failure. In contrast to previous reports, in which 50% of patients had COPD and 14% had hypoxemic respiratory failure [1], the patients included in our study suffered essentially from acute hypoxic respiratory failure (77%) or from AHRF with COPD (23%). Patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema were excluded from this study. The proportion of hypoxemic patients who experience NIV failure is generally higher than among patients with AHRF. The severity scores and patient age in this study were comparable to those previously reported [1]. Although 77% of patients in that study required ETI [1], only 30% of our patients required this procedure.
The use of opioids as single sedatives has been restricted, especially in patients receiving partial ventilatory support [21] due to their effects on respiratory drive, which sometimes occurs even at low doses. Morphine and fentanyl act on all opioid receptor subtypes, providing effective analgesia at the price of a marked reduction in respiratory drive. Sufentanil and remifentanil, two recently developed synthetic opioids, possess attractive properties for continuous infusion in ICU patients, since they interact almost exclusively with μ1-receptors. Sufentanil-based sedation has been used in patients under pressure support ventilation, since they increase comfort without decreasing respiratory drive [8]. Since sufentanil is not a short acting opioid, however, its long-term infusion may cause accumulation phenomena that may delay patient recovery [10]. We therefore preferred remifentanil-based sedation for patients in NIV. Moreover, we needed to obtain a good level of sedation quickly, and the pKa of remifentanil (i.e., pH at which the opioid is 50% ionized) is lower than physiological pH, allowing this drug to penetrate the blood-brain barrier and leading to rapid equilibration of its concentration.
Our findings are consistent with earlier results showing that low doses of remifentanil (0.05 μg kg−1 min−1 provide analgesia and sedation in critically ill patients without decreasing respiratory drive [19]. The doses that we used were slightly higher than those used elsewhere, but they induced a similar level of sedation [20, 22]. We found that PaCO2 increased 9% after 1 h, but this increase was not statistically significant. Our data do not support or refute the hypothesis that remifentanil decreases respiratory drive. Before NIV the ten patients in acute renal failure presented with respiratory alkalosis due to hypoxemia. An increase in PaO2 could reduce hyperventilation. In the other hand, PaCO2 decreased 64% after 1 h of NIV under sedation in patients with AHRF whereas respiratory rate decreased 36% but never dropped below 20/min. Continuous transcutaneous monitoring of PCO2 [23, 24] may clarify this and may be helpful in clinical practice.
Although continuous intravenous weight-adjusted infusion of remifentanil is the routine practice in our ICU, it is probably not the best way to administer this drug. Target-controlled infusion of remifentanil is routinely used for perioperative analgesia because less drug is required and because of its smooth mode of administration [25]. These results suggest that target-controlled infusion of remifentanil is a more efficient route of administration in spontaneously breathing patients.
As previously reported [19], the required level of sedation in three patients was not achieved with the maximum allowed dose of remifentanil. To avoid high doses of opioids, which decrease respiratory drive [19, 20], we used a combination of propofol and remifentanil, resulting in a reduction in the dose requirement for both agents [26], especially of propofol [27]. However, when the association remifentanil and propofol is infused for a prolonged period, there is possible risks of propofol accumulation.
An important limitation of our study was the relatively small number of patients, which may not have allowed us to detect all possible complications. Moreover, these results were obtained in an intensive care unit of a department of anesthesiology which is experienced in routine NIV therapy and in the use of remifentanil for ventilated patients. Analgesia-based sedation can mask the side effects of NIV, such as gastric dilation and facial skin lesions. Using a precise, written nursing protocol, however, we did not observe any adverse events over 1200 h of NIV.
Conclusion
This small pilot study reports the feasibility and safety of remifentanil-based sedation during NIV in patients with NIV failure. If a reduction in the rate of ETI is confirmed in controlled, randomized trials, the use of analgesia-based sedation to treat NIV failure would be an interesting alternative.
References
Carlucci A, Richard JC, Wysocki M, Lepage E, Brochard L, SRLF Collaborative Group on Mechanical Ventilation (2001) Noninvasive versus conventional mechanical ventilation. An epidemiologic survey. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 163:874–880
Bonmarchand G, Girault C (2001) Acute respiratory failure in patients with chronic respiratory insufficiency. Rev Prat 51:1094–1100
Keenan SP, Kernerman PD, Cook DJ, Martin CM, McCormack D, Sibbald WJ (1997) Effect of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation on mortality in patients admitted with acute respiratory failure: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 25:1685–1692
Sinuff T (2002) Review: noninvasive ventilation reduces mortality in acute respiratory failure. ACP J Club 137:50
Hilbert G, Gruson D, Vargas F, Valentino R, Gbikpi-Benissan G, Dupon M, Reiffers J, Cardinaud JP (2001) Noninvasive ventilation in immunosuppressed patients with pulmonary infiltrates, fever, and acute respiratory failure. N Engl J Med 344:481–487
Girou E, Brun-Buisson C, Taille S, Lemaire F, Brochard L (2003) Secular trends in nosocomial infections and mortality associated with noninvasive ventilation in patients with exacerbation of COPD and pulmonary edema. JAMA 290:2985–2991
Nourdine K, Combes P, Carton MJ, Beuret P, Cannamela A, Ducreux JC (1999) Does noninvasive ventilation reduce the ICU nosocomial infection risk? A prospective clinical survey. Intensive Care Med 25:567–573
Conti G, Arcangeli A, Antonelli M, Cavaliere F, Costa R, Simeoni F, Proietti R (2004) Sedation with sufentanil in patients receiving pressure support ventilation has no effects on respiration: a pilot study. Can J Anaesth 51:494–49
Conti G, Costa R, Pellegrini A, Craba A, Cavaliere F (2005) Analgesia in PACU: intravenous opioids. Curr Drug Targets 6:767–771
Ethuin F, Boudaoud S, Leblanc I, Troje C, Marie O, Levron JC, Le Moing JP, Assoune P, Eurin B, Jacob L (2003) Pharmacokinetics of long-term sufentanil infusion for sedation in ICU patients. Intensive Care Med 29:1916–1920
Brochard L (1996) Non-invasive modalities of mechanical ventilation. Presse Med 25:1407–1409
Hoke JF, Shlugman D, Dershwitz M, Michalowski P, Malthouse-Dufore S, Connors PM, Martel D, Rosow CE, Muir KT, Rubin N, Glass PS (1997) Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil in persons with renal failure compared with healthy volunteers. Anesthesiology 87:533–541
Kuhlen R, Putensen C (2004) Remifentanil for analgesia-based sedation in the intensive care unit. Crit Care 8:13–14
Ramsay MA, Macaluso A, Tillmann Hein HA, Cancemi E (1998) Use of remifentanil in patients breathing spontaneously during monitored anesthesia care and in the management of acute postoperative care. Anesthesiology 88:1124–1126
Ramsay MA, Savege TM, Simpson BR, Goodwin R (1974) Controlled sedation with alphaxalone-alphadolone. BMJ 2:656–659
Jaber S, Chanques G, Matecki S, Ramonatxo M, Souche B, Perrigault PF, Eledjam JJ (2002) Comparison of the effects of heat and moisture exchangers and heated humidifiers on ventilation and gas exchange during non-invasive ventilation. Intensive Care Med 28:1590–1594
Lellouche F, Maggiore SM, Deye N, Taille S, Pigeot J, Harf A, Brochard L (2002) Effect of the humidification device on the work of breathing during noninvasive ventilation. Intensive Care Med 28:1582–1589
Rocker GM, Mackenzie MG, Williams B, Logan PM (1999) Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation: successful outcome in patients with acute lung injury/ARDS. Chest 115:173–177
Cavaliere F, Antonelli M, Arcangeli A, Conti G, Costa R, Pennisi MA, Proietti R (2002) A low-dose remifentanil infusion is well tolerated for sedation in mechanically ventilated, critically-ill patients. Can J Anaesth 49:1088–1094
Bilgin H, Basagan Mogol E, Bekar A, Iscimen R, Korfali G (2006) A comparison of effects of alfentanil, fentanyl, and remifentanil on hemodynamic and respiratory parameters during stereotactic brain biopsy. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 18:179–184
Arunasalam K, Davenport HT, Painter S, Jones JG (1983) Ventilatory response to morphine in young and old subjects. Anaesthesia 38:529–533
Babenco HD, Conard PF, Gross JB (2000) The pharmacodynamic effect of a remifentanil bolus on ventilatory control. Anesthesiology 92:393–398
Janssens JP, Howarth-Frey C, Chevrolet JC, Abajo B, Rochat T (1998) Transcutaneous PCO2 to monitor noninvasive mechanical ventilation in adults: assessment of a new transcutaneous PCO2 device. Chest 113:768–773
Janssens JP, Perrin E, Bennani I, de Muralt B, Titelion V, Picaud C (2001) Is continuous transcutaneous monitoring of PCO2 (TcPCO2) over 8 h reliable in adults? Respir Med 95:331–335
De Castro V, Godet G, Mencia G, Raux M, Coriat P (2003) Target-controlled infusion for remifentanil in vascular patients improves hemodynamics and decreases remifentanil requirement. Anesth Analg 96:33–38
Mertens MJ, Engbers FH, Burm AG, Vuyk J (2003) Predictive performance of computer-controlled infusion of remifentanil during propofol/remifentanil anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 90:132–141
Nieuwenhuijs DJ, Olofsen E, Romberg RR, Sarton E, Ward D, Engbers F, Vuyk J, Mooren R, Teppema LJ, Dahan A (2003) Response surface modeling of remifentanil-propofol interaction on cardiorespiratory control and bispectral index. Anesthesiology 98:312–322
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Constantin, JM., Schneider, E., Cayot-Constantin, S. et al. Remifentanil-based sedation to treat noninvasive ventilation failure: a preliminary study. Intensive Care Med 33, 82–87 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-006-0447-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-006-0447-4