ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2025
A prospective clinical trial predicting the 95% effective concentration of remifentanil for skull pin fixation using haemodynamic and surgical pleth index monitoring.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Inadequate antinociception during skull pin fixation can destabilise haemodynamics in patients undergoing intracranial surgery. However, the concentration of remifentanil required to achieve sufficient antinociception and maintain stable haemodynamics under surgical pleth index (SPI) monitoring remains unestablished. We aimed to determine the 95% effective concentration (EC95) of remifentanil for skull pin fixation using haemodynamic and SPI monitoring. Methods: Nineteen patients undergoing intracranial surgery were enroled. Anaesthesia was administered via target-controlled infusion (TCI) of remifentanil and propofol and monitored using the SPI and bispectral index (BIS). Skull pin fixation was conducted at varying remifentanil effect-site concentrations, determined using Dixon's up-and-down method with a 0.5-ng/mL step size while maintaining a BIS of 40-60. Severe pain was defined as SPI >80, haemodynamic change >20% from baseline, heart rate (HR) >100 bpm, or blood pressure >180/100 mmHg and classified as a failure. Success was defined as SPI ≤80 and haemodynamic stability (haemodynamic changes < 20% from baseline, HR ≤100 bpm, and arterial blood pressure ≤180/100 mmHg occurring simultaneously). Statistical tests were conducted using SPSS Statistics (Version 27.0; IBM, Armonk, NY) for Windows. Results: Probit analysis of seven pairs of failure-success outcomes revealed that the EC95 of remifentanil for skull pin fixation, providing adequate antinociception and haemodynamic stability, was 4.23 ng/mL. Conclusion: Skull pin fixation can be performed in 95% of patients without triggering noxious stimulation-induced cardiovascular responses by setting remifentanil to 4.23 ng/mL, utilising remifentanil/propofol TCI with SPI and BIS monitoring.
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.