Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40324015›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2025

Clinical efficacy and safety of automatic remifentanil administration based on Analgesia Nociception Index monitoring during burn surgery under propofol anesthesia: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

Maxence Hureau, Emeline Caillau, Julien Labreuche, Mathilde Herbet, Benoît Tavernier, Julien De Jonckheere, Mathieu Jeanne

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. [A compulsory course in clinical treatment of burn patients: pain and analgesia].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Maxence HureauCHU Lille, Anesthesia and Critical Care, Lille, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8545-9923
Emeline CaillauCHU Lille, Statistique, Evaluation, Economique, Data-management Lille, Lille, France.
Julien LabreucheCHU Lille, Statistique, Evaluation, Economique, Data-management Lille, Lille, France.
Mathilde HerbetCHU Lille, CIC-IT 1403, Lille, France.
Benoît TavernierCHU Lille, Anesthesia and Critical Care, Lille, France.
Julien De JonckheereCHU Lille, CIC-IT 1403, Lille, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3727-9434
Mathieu JeanneCHU Lille, Anesthesia and Critical Care, Lille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMonitoring the nociception/antinociception balance for analgesic guidance during general anesthesia may improve the quality of anesthesia. The University Hospital of Lille (France) has developed an expert software system for automatic remifentanil administration based on the continuous monitoring of the Analgesia Nociception Index (MDoloris, France). We assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of the ANI-REMI-LOOP "expert-system software" during burn surgery in a monocentric randomized controlled trial.

methodsThe trial was approved by the French Ethics Committee, and all patients gave written informed consent. From 2018 to 2022, 52 adults were randomized into two groups: manual remifentanil infusion (standard practice) or automatic remifentanil infusion (expert-system software) during BIS-guided propofol anesthesia at the burn center of the hospital. In the standard practice group, remifentanil administration was based on Minto's model and guided by the analgesia nociception index. In both groups, propofol was administered based on Schnider's model and guided by the BiSpectral Index (Covidien). The primary endpoint was the cumulative remifentanil dose administered during anesthesia and secondary endpoints were related to the clinical safety of automatic remifentanil administration with the incidence and duration of hypotension, bradycardia, hypertension or tachycardia related to nociception. After anesthesia, the endpoints were pain and analgesic requirements during 2 hours. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Data are presented as median [1st to 3rd quartile].

resultsThe cumulative remifentanil dose was significantly lower in the automatic group 0.125 µg.kg-1.min-1 [0.106 to 0.149] vs. 0.152 µg.kg-1.min-1 [0.137 to 0.237], p = 0.004), and the cumulative proportion of time with hemodynamic impairment or reactivity was significantly lower in the expert-system automatic group 4.2% [2.5 to 5.7] vs. 19.4% [6.9 to 59.9], p = 0.010). There were no safety issues, and pain and analgesic requirements were similar in both groups after surgery.

conclusionsAutomatic remifentanil administration demonstrated good clinical performances during propofol anesthesia for burn surgery. It is likely that these results can be extrapolated to any surgical setting under general anesthesia, but this needs to be tested with further randomized clinical trials.

Indexed as

Anesthetics, IntravenousBurnsNociceptionPropofolRemifentanilAdultAnalgesiaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, IntraoperativeAnesthetics, IntravenousPropofolRemifentanil

Identifiers

PMID40324015
PMCPMC12052174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.