Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2023
Randomized comparison of effects of two different remifentanil dose on surgical conditions during endoscopic sinus surgery.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of High Maintenance Dose Versus Low Dose of Remifentanil on Incidence of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) in Patients Under Gynecological Laparoscopic Procedure: A Pilot Study.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Trial
- Post-Thyroidectomy Nausea and Vomiting Using Continuous Remifentanil Infusion During Emergence Depending on the Inhaled Anesthetics: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Female Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery with Double Prophylactic Therapy.Surgery journal (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe combination of propofol and remifentanil results in better surgical field conditions during endoscopic sinus surgery than inhalation anesthesia. This study compared surgical field conditions between two groups receiving low or high concentration of remifentanil and hemodynamic variables using non-invasive cardiac monitoring.
methodsFifty-four patients between ASA I or II, were randomly assigned to either the high-concentration remifentanil group (HR), effect-site concentration of 8 ng/mL or the low-concentration remifentanil group(LR), effect-site concentration of 4 ng/mL. Surgical condition was evaluated using the Boezaart Surgical Field Grading Scale presented by Boezaart. Cardiac output was measured using non-invasive cardiac monitoring (CSN-1901).
resultsIn terms of surgical conditions, the HR group showed significantly lower values than the LR group (p = 0.021) at 90 min after the start of surgery. Heart rate was significantly lower in the HR group than the LR group at 30, 60, and 90 min after the start of surgery (30 min; p = 0.005, 60 min; p = 0.002, 90 min; p = 0.001). There was a statistically significant decrease of cardiac output in the HR group compared to the LR group immediately after endotracheal intubation and at 30, 60, and 90 min after the start of surgery (Base; P = 0.222, Intubation; P = 0.016, 30 min; p = 0.014, 60 min; P = 0.012, 90 min; P = 0.008). However, in the case of stroke volume, there was no significant difference between the two groups in all measurements.
conclusionWhen comparing the HR group and the LR group, the surgical condition was improved at 90 min after the start of surgery. MAP was lower in the HR group and this was a result of reduction in cardiac output primarily attributed to the decrease in heart rate rather than a decrease in stroke volume.
trial registrationClinical Trial Registry of the Republic of Korea (KCT0006453).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.