Open Access

Could remifentanil reduce duration of mechanical ventilation in comparison with other opioids for mechanically ventilated patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Contributed equally
Critical Care201721:206

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1789-8

Received: 4 March 2017

Accepted: 5 July 2017

Published: 3 August 2017

Abstract

Background

Sedation and analgesia are commonly required to relieve anxiety and pain in mechanically ventilated patients. Fentanyl and morphine are the most frequently used opioids. Remifentanil is a selective μ-opioid receptor that is metabolized by unspecific esterases and eliminated independently of liver or renal function. Remifentanil has a rapid onset and offset and a short context-sensitive half-life regardless of the duration of infusion, which may lead to reductions in weaning and extubation. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of remifentanil to that of other opioids in mechanically ventilated patients.

Methods

We conducted a search to identify relevant randomized controlled studies (RCTs) in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and SinoMed databases that had been published up to 31 December 2016. The results were analysed using weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Twenty-three RCTs with 1905 patients were included. Remifentanil was associated with reductions in the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -1.46; 95% CI -2.44 to -0.49), time to extubation after sedation cessation (mean difference -1.02; 95% CI -1.59 to -0.46), and ICU-LOS (mean difference -0.10; 95% CI -0.16 to -0.03). No significant differences were identified in hospital-LOS (mean difference -0.05; 95% CI -0.25 to 0.15), costs (mean difference -709.71; 95% CI -1590.98 to 171.55; I2 88%), mortality (mean difference -0.64; 95% CI -1.33 to 0.06; I2 87%) or agitation (mean difference -0.71; 95% CI -1.80 to 0.37; I2 93%).

Conclusions

Remifentanil seems to be associated with reductions in the duration of mechanical ventilation, time to extubation after cessation of sedation, and ICU-LOS. No significant differences were identified between remifentanil and other opioids in terms of hospital-LOS, costs, mortality or agitation.

Keywords

AnalgesiaRemifentanilMechanical ventilationMeta-analysisSystematic reviewCritical care

Background

Pain and anxiety are among the worst experiences for the critically ill, especially those on mechanical ventilation. Mechanically ventilated patients generally require a combination of analgesia and sedation to improve compliance with mechanical ventilation, adaption to endotracheal tubes, and pain relief [1]. Propofol and midazolam have been identified as the hypnotic drugs most commonly used for sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU), and among sedatives, shorter elimination half-lives are associated with shorter awakening times, resulting in reductions in time to weaning and time to extubation [2]. Opioids are commonly used in the ICU for analgesia, and the accumulation of opioid agents may cause respiratory depression, thus leading to prolongation of time to weaning and extubation.

Studies have found the most frequently used opioids to be fentanyl (30–35%), morphine (15–33%), and sufentanil (25–40%), the specific proportions of which differ in the results of different surveys, with remifentanil being less commonly used (10%) [3, 4]. However, the use of opioids may not be ideal in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. The renal metabolism of morphine results in accumulation of morphine-6-glucuronide in patients with renal impairment. In addition, common adverse effects of morphine include histamine release, pruritus, and constipation [5]. Fentanyl, alfentanil and sufentanil undergo hepatic metabolism, and continuous infusion results in accumulation and prolongation of effect [5]. Those pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles have disadvantages in terms of rapid weaning and extubation.

Similar to fentanyl, alfentanil, and sufentanil, remifentanil is a potent, selective 4-anilidopiperidine μ-opioid analgesic. However, unlike fentanyl and other opioids, remifentanil is completely metabolized by unspecific esterases in a manner that is independent of liver or renal function [5, 6]. Since unspecific esterases have been found to be widely distributed in living human cells, there are no ICU disease states or types of organ failure that would lead to reduced breakdown of remifentanil. The major breakdown product of remifentanil is remifentanil acid (RA), which has a potency of only 1/300 to 1/4600 that of remifentanil, has poor brain penetration and is unlikely to cause respiratory failure [6, 7]. Remifentanil has a highly predictable onset and offset effect, a terminal half-life of approximately 10 to 20 minutes, and a context-sensitive half-life of 3 to 4 minutes [6, 8]. The unique pharmacokinetics of remifentanil may lead to reductions in time to weaning and extubation and, accordingly, may be associated with reductions in mechanical ventilation time, length of ICU stay (ICU-LOS), and costs.

Several randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and cohort studies have been conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of remifentanil with those of other opioids. Mechanical ventilation time and extubation time are commonly evaluated indicators. Taking Dahaba et al.’s study [1] as an example, 40 mechanically ventilated patients who were assigned an analgesia protocol involving the administration of either remifentanil or morphine; these analgesics were initiated at the minimum dose and titrated up to an optimal level of sedation, with midazolam serving as a rescue treatment. The results of this study showed that remifentanil was associated with significant reductions in mean duration of mechanical ventilation and extubation time. The same outcome measures have been assessed in several RCTs). The results of a meta-analysis [9] showed that remifentanil was associated with reduced time to extubation after sedation cessation, but no significant difference was identified between remifentanil and other opioids in terms of mechanical ventilation duration. However, another meta-analysis [10] showed that remifentanil was associated with a significantly reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation. The results of a cost-consequence analysis performed by Al et al. [11] suggested that remifentanil was associated with significantly decreased ICU costs, whereas the results of Engoren et al.’s study [12] showed that higher opioid and anaesthetic costs but lower hospital costs were identified in remifentanil group relative to the fentanyl group. The results of these economic analyses were complex. On the one hand, reductions in ventilation time, ICU-LOS and length of stay in hospital (hospital-LOS) were associated with a reduction in overall cost, but shorter-acting anaesthetics were more expensive. On the other hand, morphine withdrawal-associated immunosuppression and remifentanil discontinuation were identified as independent risk factors for ICU-acquired infections, and excessive analgesia was associated with nosocomial pneumonia delirium and psychological disorders, which increases the complexity of the evaluation of remifentanil [13]. Several studies have been conducted since the meta-analysis was performed in 2009 [10], which showed that remifentanil was associated with reduced time to extubation after sedation cessation and indicated the presence of no significant differences between remifentanil and other opioids in terms of mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU-LOS, and risk of agitation. Therefore, we conducted this study with the intention of updating these data and re-evaluating the efficacy and safety of remifentanil in mechanically ventilated patients relative to the safety and efficacy of other opioids.

Methods

Search strategy and selection criteria

Four electronic databases were searched (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and SinoMed)) to identify studies published from 2001 until December 2016. A search strategy was developed for PubMed (Additional file 1: Appendix 1) and the other databases. Our research was limited to RCTs, and no language restriction was applied. The reference lists of relevant articles were also reviewed. We contacted the authors of the studies if additional data were required for the predefined outcomes. Non-English language articles were translated before further analysis.

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) the study population consisted of adults (mean age ≥18 years old) undergoing mechanical ventilation; (2) the study design was an RCT; (3) remifentanil or a remifentanil/sedative combination was used for analgesia and sedation; and (4) the outcomes included at least one of the following measures: duration of mechanical ventilation, time to extubation after cessation of sedation, ICU-LOS, hospital-LOS, costs, proportion of patients with agitation, delirium, nausea/vomiting, or mortality.

Studies in which remifentanil was not compared with another opioid or another opioid/sedative combination were excluded. Publications available only in abstract form or as meeting reports were excluded.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Two reviewers (ZYB and WYH) independently extracted data from the published sources using a predesigned data extraction form. The following data were abstracted from each included study: the study ID, journal, year of publication, country, setting, centre, mean age, proportion of male subjects, disease severity, disease type, proportion of post-surgical patients, sample size, comparator, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, intervention and outcomes. Two reviewers independently rated the quality of the RCTs using the Modified Jadad scores [14], which are determined using a checklist designed to measure the quality of RCT reporting. The following elements are evaluated when calculating a Modified Jadad score: randomization (0–2), concealment of allocation (0–2), double blinding (0–2), and withdrawals and dropouts (0–1). The trials were rated based on what they reported, and the results of the quality assessment are described in the table describing the characteristics of included studies (Table 1).
Table 1

Characteristics of included studies

Study ID

Journal

Year

Participants

Setting

Post-surgical patients

Interventions

Sedative

Aim

Outcomes

Al et al. [11]

Critical Care

2010

205 mechanically ventilated medical and surgical patients; mean age 65; mean SAPS II 45

ICU

37–44%

Remifentanil group: remifentanil 0.4–45ug/kg/h, propofol as rescue treatment once remifentanil infusion > 12 ug/kg/h was needed; control group: analgesia was achieved by either morphine 1–0 mg/h or fentanyl 25–100 mg/h, either propofol 0.5–4 mg/kg/h or midazolam 0.01–0.2 mg/kg/h or lorazepam 0.01–0.1 mg/kg/h for sedation

Remifentanil group: propofol 65%; control group: propofol 46%, midazolam 81%, lorazepam 7%

SAS 3–4

Time to extubation after cessation of sedation, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU-LOS, costs

Rozendaal et al. [16]

Intensive Critical Medicine

2009

205 mechanically ventilated medical and surgical patients; mean age 65; mean SAPS II 45

ICU

37–44%

Remifentanil group: remifentanil 0.4–45 ug/kg/h, propofol as rescue treatment once remifentanil infusion > 12 ug/kg/h was needed; control group: analgesia was achieved by either morphine 1–10 mg/h or fentanyl 25–-100 mg/h, either propofol 0.5–4 mg/kg/h or midazolam 0.01–0.2 mg/kg/h or lorazepam 0.01–0.1 mg/kg/h for sedation

Remifentanil group: propofol 65%; control group: propofol 46%, midazolam 81%, lorazepam 7%

SAS 3–4

Time to extubation after cessation of sedation, ICU-LOS, duration of mechanical ventilation

Spies et al. [13]

Intensive Critical Medicine

2011

65 adult medical and surgical patients requiring mechanical ventilation for more than 24 h; mean age 63; mean APACHE II 25; mean SOPA 9

ICU

92–97%

Remifentanil group: remifentanil 0.1–0.4 ug/kg/min; fentanyl group: fentanyl 0.02–0.08 ug/kg/min; the study protocol did not allow any bolus application of either fentanyl or remifentanil

Remifentanil group:propofol, midazolam, lorazepam; fentanyl group: propofol, midazolam, lorazepam, proportion not mentioned

VAS ≤ 3 and/or BPS ≤ 6

Duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU-LOS, hospital-LOS, delirium, reflux/vomiting

Lui et al. [20]

Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue

2013

60 patients with mechanical ventilation for over 24 h after tumor operation; mean age 64; mean APACHE II 20

ICU

100%

Remifentanil group: remifentanil 0.05 ug/kg/h, titrated up with increment of 0.025 ug/kg/min; fentanyl group: fentanyl 0.5 ug/kg/h, titrated up with increment of 0.25 ug/kg/h; propofol as rescue treatment for remifentanil group once remifentanil infusion > 0.1 ug/kg/h and for fentanyl group once fentanyl infusion > 1 ug/kg/h

Remifentanil group: propofol 26%;fentanyl group: propofol 63%

Ramsay 2–3

Duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU-LOS, costs

Khanykin et al. [36]

The Heart Surgery Forum

2013

71 mechanically ventilated postoperative patients; mean age 64

ICU

100%

Remifentanil group: remifentanil 0.2–0.5 ug/kg/min as required after termination of bypass, remifentanil 0.1–0.2 ug/kg/min for postoperative pain; low-dose fentanyl group: fentanyl 3–4ug/kg as required after termination of bypass, morphine 2.5–5 mg for postoperative pain

None

NR

ICU-LOS, hospital LOS, extubation time

Bhavsar et al. [21]

Anesthesia

2016

60 mechanically ventilated postoperative patients; mean age 68

ICU

100%

Remifentanil group: remifentanil 0.4–0.6 ug/kg/min during surgery, remifentanil 0.1ug/kg/min after surgery; sufentanil group: sufentanil 1–2ug/kg within 1–2 minutes, total dose of sufentanil 3–3.5ug/kg before cardiopulmonary bypass

None

VAS 3–4

Duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU-LOS, hospital-LOS

Engoren et al. [12]

Anesthesia & Analgesia

2001

90 adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery; mean age 60

ICU

100%

Remifentanil group: remifentanil infusion at 0.5–1 ug/kg/min,then maintained 0.05–1 ug/kg/min; fentanyl group: fentanyl 7–10 ug/kg for the induction and additional doses of 1–2 ug/kg as needed for intense stimulus; sufentanil group: sufentanil 1–4 ug/kg for the induction and 0.1–0.3 ug/kg as needed for intense stimulus

None

NR

Duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU-LOS, hospital LOS, costs

Muellejans et al. [22]

Critical Care

2006

80 adult patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery; mean age 66; mean SAPS II 33

ICU

100%

Remifentanil group: remifentanil 6–60 ug/kg/h; fentanyl/midazolam group: fentanyl 1–2 ug/kg/h, midazolam 0.02–0.04 mg/kg/h; propofol as rescue treatment for remifentanil group and midazolam ± fentanil for fentanyl/midazolam group

None

VAS < 4

Delirium, time to extubation after cessation of sedation, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU-LOS, costs

Muellejans et al. [23]

Critical Care

2004

152 mechanically ventilated medical or surgical patients; mean age 60; mean SAPS II 28

ICU

92–95%

Remifentanil group: remifentanil 9–12 ug/kg/h fentanyl group: fentanyl 1–2 ug/kg/h; propofol as rescue treatment for both groups

Remifentanil group: propofol 35%; fentanyl group: propofol: 40%

SAS 4

Proportion required rescue sedation, nausea/vomiting, time to extubation after cessation of sedation

Karabinis et al. [24]

Critical Care

2004

161 mechanical ventilated elective or emergency neurosurgical patients; mean age 47

neuro-ICU

25–49%

Remifentanil group: remifentanil 9-18 ug/kg/h; fentanyl group: fentanyl 0.1–7.9 ug/kg/min; morphine group: 0-–6.8 mg/kg/min; propofol as rescue treatment for remifentanil group and all patients changed to midazolam infusion on day 3

Remifentanil group: propofol 90%, midazolam 36%; fentanyl group: propofol 100%, midazolam 30%; morphine group: propofol 93%,midazolam 30%

SAS < 4

Mortality, time to extubation after cessation of sedation, duration of mechanical ventilation

Baillard et al. [25]

Annales Françaises d'Anesthésie et de Réanimation

2005

41 mechanically ventilated medical and trauma patients; mean age

ICU

29%

Remifentanil group: remifentanil 10 ug/kg/h and titrated; sufentanil group: sufentanil 0.125 ug/kg/h and titrated; current midazolam for both groups at 0.1 mg/kg/h

Both of remifentanil and sufentanil group: midazolam 100%

Ramsay 4

Mortality, time to extubation after cessation of sedation, ICU-LOS

Dahaba et al. [1]

Anesthesiology

2004

40 mechanically ventilated patients after orthopedic or general surgery; mean age 58; mean SAPS II 23

ICU

100%

Remifentanil group: remifentanil 9–12 ug/kg/h morphine group: morphine 0.04–0.06 mg/kg/h; routine current midazolam 0.03 mg/kg/h for both groups as rescue treatment

Remifentanil group: midazolam 30%; morphine group: 45%

SAS 4

Proportion of patients with agitation, nausea/vomiting, mortality, time to extubation after cessation of sedation, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU-LOS

Breen et al. [26]

Critical Care

2005

105 mechanically ventilated 3–10days) patients; mean age 54; mean SAPS II 43

ICU

8–13%

Remifentanil group: remifentanil 6–18 ug/kg/h; fentanil or morphine group: standard clinical protocol for the unit; midazolam 2 mg bolus as rescue treatment for both groups

Remifentanil group: midazolam 74%; fentanyl group: midazolam 62%; morphine group: midazolam 23%

SAS 3–4

Nausea/vomiting, mortality, time to extubation after cessation of sedation; duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU-LOS

Belhadj Amor et al. [27]

Annales Françaises d'Anesthésie et de Réanimation

2007

19 mechanically ventilated patients with renal impairment(creatinine clearance < 50 ml/min); mean age 60; mean APACHE II 37

ICU

0

Remifentanil group: remifentanil 6 ug/kg/h, titrated up by increment of 100 ug/h; fentanyl group: fentanyl 1.5 ug/kg/h, titrated up with increment of 25 ug/h; routine concurrent midazolam infusion for both groups at 0.1 mg/kg/h

Remifentanil group: midazolam 78%; fentanyl group: midazolam 95%;

Ramsay 3-4

Proportion of patients with agitation, time to extubation after cessation of sedation, ICU-LOS

Carrer et al. [28]

Minerva Anestesiologica

2007

100 mechanically ventilated postsurgical patients; mean age 69; mean SAPS II 26

ICU

100%

Remifentanil group: remifentanil 6 ug/kg/h and titrated; morphine group: morphine 0.03–0.04 mg/kg/h and titrated; concurrent morphine for both groups at 0.01 mg/kg/h, diazepam 0.1 mg/kg as rescue treatment

Remifentanil group: diazepam 28%; morphine group: diazepam 60%

Ramsay 3

Proportion of patients achieving optimal level of sedation without rescue therapy, nausea/vomiting, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU-LOS

Gerlach et al. [29]

Journal of Cardiothoracic & Vascular Anesthesia

2002

26 mechanically ventilated postsurgical patients; mean age 64

ICU

100%

Remifentanil group: remifentanil 0.15–0.3 ug/kg/min; sufentanil group: sufentanil 0.5–1 ug/kg/h

Both of remifentanil and sufentanil groups: propofol, proportion not mentioned

Self-reported no pain

Duration of mechanical ventilation, nausea/vomiting, time to extubation after cessation of sedation

Guggenherger et al. [30]

European Journal of Anaesthesiology

2006

59 mechanically ventilated postsurgical patients; mean age 67

ICU

100%

Remifentanil group: remifentanil 0.5–1 ug/kg/min; sufentanil group: 30–40 ng/kg/min

Both of remifentanil and sufentanil groups: propofol, proportion not mentioned

VAS < 4

Duration of mechanical ventilation, hospital-LOS, time to extubation after cessation of sedation, ICU-LOS

Knapik et al. [31]

Medical Science Monitor

2006

40 mechanically ventilated postsurgical patients; mean age 56

ICU

100%

Remifentanil group: remifentanil 0.25–0.5 ug/kg/min; fentanyl group: fentanyl 2.5 ug/kg/h

None

 

Duration of mechanical ventilation, hospital-LOS

Maddali et al. [32]

Journal of Clinical Anesthesia

2006

180 mechanically ventilated postsurgical patients; mean age 55

ICU

100%

Remifentanil group: remifentanil 1 ug/kg/min; fentanyl group: 0.025–0.15 ug/kg/min; diclofenac group: propofol 2–5 mg/kg/h

Both of remifentanil and fentanyl groups: propofol 100%

VAS < 4

Duration of mechanical ventilation, time to extubation after cessation of sedation, ICU-LOS

Myles et al. [19]

Anesthesia and Analgesia

2002

87 mechanically ventilated postsurgical patients; mean age 62

ICU

100%

Remifentanil group: remifentanil 0.83 ug/kg/min; small dose fentanyl group: fentanyl bolus, small dose, at 12 ug/kg; moderate dose fentanyl group: fentanyl bolus, moderate dose, at 24 ug/kg

All of remifentanil, small dose fentanyl and moderate dose fentanyl groups: propofol 100%

NR

Duration of mechanical ventilation, hospital-LOS, costs

Winterhalter et al. [33]

European Journal of Anaesthesiology

2008

42 mechanically ventilated postsurgical adult patients; mean age 63

ICU

100%

Remifentanil group: remifentanil 0.25 ug/kg/min; fentanyl group: fentanyl bolus 4 ug/kg every 30 min

Both of remifentanil and fentanyl groups: propofol 100%

VAS < 4

Duration of mechanical ventilation, hospital-LOS, time to extubation after cessation of sedation

Bedirli et al. [34]

Journal of Anesthesia

2007

50 mechanically ventilated postsurgical patients; mean age 61

ICU

100%

Remifentanil group: remifentanil 1ug/kg/min; fentanyl group: fentanyl 5 ug/kg/h

None

NR

Hospital-LOS;ICU-LOS

Chinachoti et al. [35]

Medical Association of Thailand

2002

152 mechanically ventilated patients with normal renal function or mild renal impairment; mean age 59; mean SAPS II 26

ICU

NR

Remifentanil group: 9–60 ug/kg/h; morphine group:0.045–0.3 mg/kg/h

Both of remifentanil and morphine groups: midazolam

SAS 4

Time to extubation after cessation of sedation, duration of mechanical ventilation

APACHE Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, BPS Behavioural Pain Scale, ICU intensive care unit, ICU-LOS intensive care unit length of stay, NR not recorded, SAPS Simplified Acute Physiology Score, SAS Sedation Agitation Scale, SOPA Survey of Pain Attitudes, VAS Visual Analog Scale

Discordant opinions between the two reviewers were discussed until consensus was reached. If consensus could not be reached, a consulting group including two experts (XXM and DB) resolved the disagreements.

Outcomes and statistical analysis

The primary outcome was duration of mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome was analysed in five subgroups: analgesia only; analgesia and sedation; and comparisons of remifentanil with fentanyl, morphine, and/or sufentanil. The secondary outcomes included (1) time to extubation after cessation of sedation; (2) ICU-LOS; (3) hospital-LOS; (4) costs; (5) mortality; and (6) agitation. Costs were measured in dollars, and other currencies converted into dollars according to the 2016 exchange rate. The costs were measured as overall costs, such as ICU or hospital costs. Maximum costs were preferentially used if a study reported more than one cost measure.

The pooled effects were analysed using weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The presence of statistically significant heterogeneity across trials was quantitatively assessed using the I2 statistic. Inverse variance random-effects models were applied for the data analysis. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots when at least ten studies were included in this meta-analysis. A p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager Version 5.3.

Results

Study selection

Overall, 585 potentially relevant articles were identified using the search strategy. After screening the titles/abstracts of the studies, 49 articles remained and were obtained in full-text form. Twenty-six studies failed to meet the previously described inclusion criteria; therefore, 23 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Of the included studies, 19 were published in English, two were published in French, one was published in Chinese, and one was published in Thai. No relevant unpublished studies were identified. Figure 1 presents the study selection process.
Fig. 1

Flow diagram of the process for identification of the included studies

Study characteristics and quality

A total of 1905 critically ill adult patients were included in the studies subjected to meta-analysis. The sample sizes of the 23 included studies ranged from 20 to 205 participants. Twenty-two studies compared remifentanil with another one or two opioids, and one study compared remifentanil/propofol with fentanyl/midazolam. Table 1 summarizes the basic characteristics of the included studies.

The results of the study quality assessment showed that five of the 23 RCTs were of high quality (Modified Jadad score 4–7), and the other 18 RCTs were of suboptimal quality (Modified Jadad score 0–4); these studies commonly lacked details regarding concealment of allocation and withdrawals and dropouts. Table 2 summarizes the quality of the included RCTs.
Table 2

Quality assessment of included RCTs

Study ID

Randomization

Concealment of allocation

Double blinding

Withdraws and dropouts

Modified Jadad score

Quality assessment

Al et al. [11]

2

0

0

0

2

Low

Rozendaal et al. [16]

2

0

0

0

2

Low

Spies et al. [13]

2

2

2

1

7

High

Liu et al. [20]

2

0

0

0

2

Low

Khanykin et al. [36]

2

0

0

1

3

Low

Bhavsar et al. [21]

2

0

0

0

2

Low

Engoren et al. [12]

2

0

0

0

2

Low

Muellejans et al. [22]

1

0

0

1

2

Low

Muellejans et al. [23]

1

0

1

1

3

Low

Karabinis et al. [24]

1

0

0

0

1

Low

Baillard et al. [25]

2

0

1

0

3

Low

Dahaba et al. [1]

2

2

2

1

7

High

Breen et al. [26]

1

0

0

0

1

Low

Belhadj Amor et al. [27]

2

0

2

0

4

Low

Carrer et al. [28]

1

0

0

0

1

Low

Gerlach et al. [29]

2

2

0

0

4

High

Guggenherger et al. [30]

2

0

0

1

3

Low

Knapik et al. [31]

1

0

0

0

1

Low

Maddali et al. [32]

2

0

0

1

3

Low

Myles et al. [19]

2

0

2

1

5

High

Winterhalter et al. [33]

2

2

2

0

6

High

Bedirli et al. [34]

2

0

0

0

2

Low

Chinachoti et al. [35]

2

0

1

0

3

Low

Outcomes

The primary outcome, duration of mechanical ventilation, was reported in 18 RCTs. Remifentanil was associated with a reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -1.46; 95% CI -2.44 to -0.49; I2 89%. Fig. 2a).
Fig. 2

Primary outcome. Remifentanil was associated with a reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation

As for the secondary outcomes, remifentanil was associated with reductions in time to extubation after sedation cessation (mean difference -1.02; 95% CI -1.59 to -0.46; I2 96%. Fig. 3a) and ICU-LOS (mean difference -0.10; 95% CI -0.16 to -0.03; I2 85%. Fig. 3b). No significant differences in hospital-LOS (mean difference -0.05; 95% CI -0.25 to 0.15; I2 88%. Additional file 2: Figure S2a), costs (mean difference -709.71; 95% CI -1590.98 to 171.55; I2 88%. Additional file 2: Figure S2b), mortality (mean difference -0.64; 95% CI -1.33 to 0.06; I2 87%. Additional file 2: Figure S2c) and agitation (mean difference -0.71; 95% CI -1.80 to 0.37; I2 93%. Additional file 2: Figure S2d) were identified. Table 3 summarizes the data for and analyses of outcome measures.
Fig. 3

Secondary outcomes. Remifentanil was associated with a reduction in time to extubation after cessation (a) and ICU-LOS (b)

Table 3

Data and analyses of outcome measures

Outcome

Studies

Participants

Effect estimate

Heterogeneity (I2)

Measure

Duration of mechanical ventilation (Fig. 1)

18

1655

-1.46 [-2.44]

89%

Hour

Subgroup of analgesia only (Additional file 3: Figure S1a)

4

291

0.14 [-0.79]

91%

Hour

Subgroup of analgesia and sedation (Additional file 3: Figure S1b)

14

1364

-2.99 [-5.09]

84%

Hour

Subgroup of remifentanil comparing with fentanyl (Additional file 3: Figure S1c)

8

624

-3.85 [-7.39]

93%

Hour

Subgroup of remifentanil comparing with morphine (Additional file 3: Figure S1d)

4

416

-0.98 [-3.81]

74%

Hour

Subgroup of remifentanil comparing with remifentanil (Additional file 3: Figure S1e)

5

233

-0.58 [-1.78]

91%

Hour

Time to extubation after cessation of sedation (Fig. 2)

10

716

-0.68 [-0.74]

96%

Hour

ICU-LOS (Fig. 2)

17

1408

-0.04 [-0.05]

85%

Day

Hospital-LOS (Additional file 2: Figure S2a)

9

507

-0.05 [-0.25]

88%

Day

Costs (Additional file 2: Figure S2b)

4

437

943.54 [-1122.69]

90%

Dollar

Mortality (Additional file 2: Fig. S2c)

10

260

-0.64 [-1.33]

87%

Person

Agitation (Additional file 2: Fig S2d)

3

184

-0.71 [-1.80]

93%

Person

Delirium (Additional file 2: Figure S2e)

4

323

1.01 [0.63]

0

Person

As for the subgroup analyses, remifentanil was associated with a reduction in mechanical ventilation duration in the subgroup of studies in which both analgesia and sedation were administered (mean difference -2.99; 95% CI -5.09 to -0.89; I2 84%. Additional file 3: Figure S1a) and the subgroup of studies in which remifentanil and fentanyl were compared (mean difference -3.85; 95% CI -7.39 to -0.31; I2 93%. Additional file 3: Figure S1c). No significant differences were identified in the subgroup of studies in which only analgesia was administered (mean difference 0.14; 95% CI -0.79 to 1.07; I2 91%. Additional file 3: Figure S1a), the subgroup of studies in which remifentanil and morphine were compared (mean difference -0.98; 95% CI -3.81 to 1.85; I2 74%. Additional file 3: Figure S1d), and the subgroup of studies in which remifentanil and sufentanil were compared (mean difference -0.58; 95% CI -1.78 to 0.62; I2 91%. Additional file 3: Figure S1e).

Assessment of publication biases

Biases in the publication of the three outcome measures (duration of mechanical ventilation, time to extubation after cessation of sedation, and ICU-LOS) were evaluated using funnel plots. The funnel plots depicted in Fig. 4 were generally asymmetrical, which indicated the presence of publication bias. The points representing the evaluated studies in the three funnel plots were concentrated at the top showed that the studies had high precision and large sample sizes.
Fig. 4

Funnel plots. Funnel plots were generally asymmetrical. The hollow dots and dotted line indicate individual studies and 95% confidence intervals, respectively. a Funnel plot of duration of mechanical ventilation. b Funnel plot of ICU-LOS. c Funnel plot of time to extubation after cessation of sedation

Discussion

The results of this meta-analysis suggested that the use of remifentanil was associated with a reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation when compared with other opioids, findings that were supported by the results of subgroup of studies in which analgesia and sedation were administered and subgroup of studies in which remifentanil was compared with fentanyl; however, the subgroups of studies in which analgesia alone was administered and studies in which remifentanil was compared with morphine or sufentanil indicated the presence of no differences. Remifentanil was associated with reductions in time to extubation after sedation cessation and ICU-LOS but not reductions in hospital-LOS or costs.

The finding that remifentanil was found to reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation, time to extubation after sedation cessation, and ICU-LOS may be highly related to the unique pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil, namely, its rapid onset and offset, context-sensitive half-life that is hardly affected by the duration of infusion, and elimination that is independent of liver or renal function [14, 15]. In the subgroups, the results of the studies comparing remifentanil with fentanyl showed a maximal mean difference of 3.85 hours. As a selective μ-opioid receptor agonist [16, 17], remifentanil was similar to fentanyl in potency but different in pharmacokinetics. This result may indicate that remifentanil may be used as a substitute for fentanyl in some circumstances, especially in cases in which patients have developed kidney injuries or in which intermittent interruption of sedation and analgesia is needed to assess altered mental status. However, these results should be interpreted with caution for a few reasons. First, the mean differences between remifentanil and other opioids were only 1.5 hours for mechanical ventilation duration, 1 hour for time to extubation after sedation cessation, and 0.1 day for IC-LOS, which suggested that only miniscule differences may be identified in clinical practice. However, the potential benefits of remifentanil might be more apparent when used in patients with significant organ failure [6, 14], a hypothesis that more studies should explore. Moreover, neurologic assessment is essential for neurosurgical and neurotrauma patients; thus, the association between remifentanil and rapid and predictable awakening may be more meaningful in these patients, even though the difference between remifentanil and other opioids were less than 1 hour [5]. Second, high levels of heterogeneity were identified for all of the outcomes. There were remarkable differences across the included RCTs in terms of type of disease, analgesic agents and sedation protocols. We analysed the outcomes in subgroups classified by the use of different control groups and sedation protocols to reduce clinical heterogeneity; however, the statistical homogeneity was still obvious (I2 > 70%, considered as high heterogeneity). In addition, we selected a random-effects model rather than fixed-effects model to address the observed heterogeneity. Third, the funnel plots suggested the presence of publication bias in the three evaluated outcomes, which may be because the pharmaceutical companies that manufactured remifentanil funded some of the included studies.

Remifentanil was not associated with a reduction of hospital-LOS, costs, mortality, of agitation, and no differences were observed in the subgroups of studies in which only analgesia was administered and subgroup of studies in which remifentanil was compared with morphine or sufentanil, which may be because remifentanil and other opioids are similar in most regards; however, these results should be interpreted with caution for a few reasons. First, these outcome measures were assessed in small samples, and high homogeneity was observed. The mortality rate was low and not statistically powered to assess certain clinical outcomes [18]. Second, the combination of sedatives and analgesics made the estimation of the effect of opioids more difficult. Moreover, the sedation protocols and agents differed from study to study. Third, hospital-LOS and costs may be mainly affected by the severity of diseases rather than the selection of analgesia agents. In addition, anaesthetic costs accounted for only a small fraction of the overall costs. Costs were highly variable, with 95% CI ranging from -1590.98 to 171.55 dollars. Only four RCTs included assessments of costs [11, 12, 19, 20]. The types of diseases that patients were affected by in the four studies varied considerably, and the mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score varied from 20.1 to 46, suggesting the presence of large variations in cost. Further cost-effectiveness studies are needed to explore the association between analgesic agents and cost.

The strengths of our meta-analysis include the structured search strategy, retrieval of all identified studies and large sample size. Taking the measurement of mechanical ventilation duration as an example, we included 18 RCTs in the comparisons, while the previous meta-analysis only included four RCTs [9] and we believe that our results might be more convincing than the results of the previous meta-analysis due to the inclusion of a larger sample size of patients.

There are limitations to our meta-analysis. First, the choice of hypnotic differed widely from one study to another, and the analysis of the effects of hypnotic choice was, thus, more difficult to perform. Second, both clinical and statistical heterogeneities were high. In addition, most of the included RCTs (78%) were of suboptimal quality. Third, we were unable to exclude publication bias, and negative studies may be missing, potentially resulting in overestimation of the effect sizes.

Taken together, remifentanil seems to be associated with reductions in the duration of mechanical ventilation, time to extubation after sedation cessation, and ICU-LOS. No significant differences were identified between remifentanil and other opioids in terms of hospital-LOS, costs, mortality or agitation.

Conclusions

Remifentanil seems to be associated with reductions in the duration of mechanical ventilation and time to extubation after sedation cessation. Additional studies are needed to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of remifentanil and the association between the use of remifentanil and cost in critically ill patients, especially patients undergoing long-term mechanical ventilation.

Abbreviations

APACHE II: 

Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II

CI: 

Confidence interval

hospital-LOS: 

Length of stay in hospital

ICU: 

Intensive care unit

ICU-LOS: 

Length of stay in ICU

RA: 

Remifentanil acid

RCT: 

Randomized controlled trial

SAPS II: 

Simplified Acute Physiology Score II

WMD: 

Weighted mean difference

Declarations

Funding

No external funding was required for this research.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Authors’ contributions

YBZ and YHW searched the scientific literature and drafted the manuscript, collect the data and performed statistical analyses. XMX and BD contributed to conception, design, data interpretation, manuscript revision for critical intellectual content, and supervision of the study. All authors read and approved the manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Fuxing Hospital, Capital Medical University
(2)
Medical ICU, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences
(3)
Department of Critical Care Medicine, North China University of Science and Technology Affiliated Hospital

References

  1. Dahaba AA, Grabner T, Rehak PH, List WF, Metzler H. Remifentanil versus morphine analgesia and sedation for mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a randomized double blind study. Anesthesiology. 2004;101:640–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Carrasco G, Cabre L, Sobrepere G, Costa J, Molina R, Cruspinera A, Lacasa C. Synergistic sedation with propofol and midazolam in intensive care patients after coronary artery bypass grafting. Crit Care Med. 1998;2:844–51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Soliman HM, Melot C, Vincent JL. Sedative and analgesic practice in the intensive care unit: the results of a European survey. Br J Anaesth. 2001;87:186–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Payen JF, Chanques G, Mantz J, Hercule C, Auriant I, Leguillou JL, Binhas M, Genty C, Rolland C, Bosson JL. Current practices in sedation and analgesia for mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Anesthesiology. 2007;106:687–95.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Wilhelm W, Kreuer S. The place for short-acting opioids: special emphasis on remifentanil. Crit Care. 2008;12 Suppl 3:S5. doi:10.1186/cc6152.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Breen D, Wilmer A, Bodenham A, Bach V, Bonde J, Kessler P, Albrecht S, Shaikh S. Offset of pharmacodynamic effects and safety of remifentanil in intensive care unit patients with various degrees of renal impairment. Crit Care. 2004;8:R21–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cox EH, Langemeijer MWE, Gubbens-Stibbe JM, Muir KT, Danhof M. The comparative pharmacodynamics of remifentanil and its metabolite, GR90291, in a rat electroencephalographic model. Anesthesiology. 1999;90:535–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Westmoreland CL, Hoke JF, Sebel PS, Muir KT. Pharmacokinetics of remifentanil (GI87084B) and its major metabolite (GI90291) in patients undergoing elective inpatient surgery. Anesthesiology. 1993;79:893–903.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Tan JA, Ho KM. Use of remifentanil as a sedative agent in critically ill adult patients: a meta-analysis. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:1342–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Greco M, Landoni G, Biondi-Zoccai G. Remifentanil in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2012;26:110–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Al MJ, Hakkaart L, Tan SS, Bakker J. Cost-consequence analysis of remifentanil-based analgo-sedation vs. conventional analgesia and sedation for patients on mechanical ventilation in the Netherlands. Crit Care. 2010;14:1–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Engoren M, Luther G, Fenn-Buderer N. A comparison of fentanyl, sufentanil, and remifentanil for fast-track cardiac anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2001;93:859–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Spies C, Macguill M, Heymann A, Ganea C, Krahne D, Assman A, Kosiek HR, Scholtz K, Wernecke KD, Martin J. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study comparing remifentanil with fentanyl in mechanically ventilated patients. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37:469–76.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Olivo SA, Macedo LG, Gadotti IC, Fuentes J, Stanton T, Magee DJ. Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2008;88:156–75. doi:10.2522/ptj.20070147.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Steinlechner B, Dworschak M, Birkenberg B, Lang T, Schiferer A, Moritz A, Mora B, Rajek A. Low-dose remifentanil to suppress haemodynamic responses to noxious stimuli in cardiac surgery: a dose-finding study. Br J Anaesth. 2007;98:598–603.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Rozendaal FW, Spronk PE, Snellen FF, Schoen A, van Zanten AR, Foudraine NA, Mulder PG, Bakker J, UltiSAFE investigators, UltiSAFE investigators. Remifentanil-propofol analgo-sedation shortens duration of ventilation and length of ICU stay compared to a conventional regimen: a centre randomised, cross-over, open-label study in the Netherlands. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35:291–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. James MK, Feldman PL, Schuster SV, Bilotta JM, Brackeen MF, Leighton HJ. Opioid receptor activity of GI 87084B, a novel ultra-short acting analgesic, in isolated tissues. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1991;259:712–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Wong GT, Huang Z, Ji S, Irwin MG. Remifentanil reduces the release of biochemical markers of myocardial damage after coronary artery bypass surgery: a randomized trial. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2010;24:790–6. doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2009.09.012. Epub 2010 Jan 13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Myles PS, Hunt JO, Fletcher H, Watts J, Bain D, Silvers A, Buckland MR. Remifentanil, fentanyl, and cardiac surgery: a double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial of costs and outcomes. Anesth Analg. 2002;95:805–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu K, Wang D, Ma Y. Remifentanil for analgesia and sedation in mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care unit. Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2013;25:167–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Bhavsar R, Ryhammer PK, Greisen J, Rasmussen LA, Jakobsen CJ. Remifentanil compared with sufentanil does not enhance fast-track possibilities in cardiac surgery—a randomized study. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2016;30:1212–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Muellejans B, Matthey T, Scholpp J, Schill M. Sedation in the intensive care unit with remifentanil ⁄ propofol versus midazolam⁄fentanyl: a randomised, open-label, pharmaco-economic trial. Crit Care. 2006;10:R91.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Muellejans B, Lopez A, Cross MH, Bonome C, Morrison L, Kirkham AJ. Remifentanil versus fentanyl for analgesia based sedation to provide patient comfort in the intensive care unit: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial. Crit Care. 2004;8:R1–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Karabinis A, Mandragos K, Stergiopoulos S, Komnos A, Soukup J, Speelberg B, Kirkham AJ. Safety and efficacy of analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil versus standard hypnotic-based regimens in intensive care unit patients with brain injuries: a randomised, controlled trial. Crit Care. 2004;8:R268–80.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Baillard C, Cohen Y, Toumelin PL, Karoubi P, Hoang P, Ait Kaci F, Cupa M, Fosse JP. Remifentanil-midazolam compared to sufentanil-midazolam for ICU long-term sedation. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2005;24:480–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Breen D, Karabinis A, Malbrain M, Morais R, Albrecht S, Jarnvig IL, Parkinson P, Kirkham AJ. Decreased duration of mechanical ventilation when comparing analgesia-based sedation using remifentanil with standard hypnotic-based sedation for up to 10 days in intensive care unit patients: a randomised trial. Crit Care. 2005;9:R200–10.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Belhadj Amor M, Ouezini R, Lamine K, Barakette M, Labbène I, Ferjani M. Daily interruption of sedation in intensive care unit patients with renal impairment: remifentanil-midazolam compared to fentanyl-midazolam. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2007;26:1041–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Carrer S, Bocchi A, Candini M, Donegà L, Tartari S. Short-term analgesia based sedation in the intensive care unit: morphine vs. remifentanil + morphine. Minerva Anestesiol. 2007;73:327–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Gerlach K, Uhlig T, Huppe M, Kraatz E, Saager L, Schmitz A, Dörges V, Schmucker P. Remifentanil-clonidine- propofol versus sufentanil-propofol anesthesia for coronary artery bypass surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2002;16:703–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Guggenberger H, Schroeder TH, Vonthein R, Dieterich HJ, Shernan SK, Eltzschig HK. Remifentanil or sufentanil for coronary surgery: comparison of postoperative respiratory impairment. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2006;23:832–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Knapik M, Knapik P, Nadziakiewicz P, Misiołek H, Saucha W, Walaszczyk M, Dyaczyńska-Herman A. Comparison of remifentanil or fentanyl administration during isoflurane anesthesia for coronary artery bypass surgery. Med Sci Monit. 2006;12:PI33–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Maddali MM, Kurian E, Fahr J. Extubation time, hemodynamic stability, and postoperative pain control in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. An evaluation of fentanyl, remifentanil, and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs with propofol for perioperative and postoperative management. J Clin Anesth. 2006;18:605–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Winterhalter M, Brandl K, Rahe-Meyer N, Osthaus A, Hecker H, Hagl C, Adams HA, Piepenbrock S. Endocrine stress response and inflammatory activation during CABG surgery. A randomized trial comparing remifentanil infusion to intermittent fentanyl. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2008;25:326–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Bedirli N, Boyaci A, Akin A, Esmaoglu A. Comparison of the effects of fentanyl and remifentanil on splanchnic tissue perfusion during cardiac surgery. J Anesth. 2007;21:94–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Chinachoti T, Kessler P, Kirkham A, Werawatganon T. Remifentanil vs morphine for patients in intensive care unit who need short-term mechanical ventilation. J Med Assoc Thai. 2002;85:S848–857.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Khanykin B, Siddiqi R, Jensen PF, Bigler DR, Atroshchenko GV. Comparison of remifentanil and low-dose fentanyl for fast-track cardiac anesthesia: a prospective randomized study. Heart Surg Forum. 2013;16:E324–328.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement