ArticleCureus2025
Remifentanil Versus Fentanyl in Critically Ill Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Remifentanil, known for its ultra-short-acting properties and organ-independent metabolism, offers benefits over traditional opioids. Although approved for intensive care unit (ICU) use in Japan since 2022, its comparative effects against fentanyl in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients remain unclear. This study evaluated the effects of remifentanil versus fentanyl in this population. Methods This retrospective, single-center observational study included patients in ICUs requiring mechanical ventilation between April 2021 and May 2024 (excluding patients in postoperative status). Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline differences. The primary outcome was mechanical ventilation duration. Secondary outcomes included delirium incidence and drug-associated costs. Statistical analyses were conducted using Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests. Results Of 198 eligible patients, 31 were analyzed in each group following matching. The median (interquartile range) ventilation duration was 107.5 (45.6-196.8) and 124.1 (93.8-324.0) hours for remifentanil and fentanyl, respectively (median difference: -16.6 hours; 95% confidence interval: -147.0-26.2; P = 0.15), indicating statistical non-significance but a wide confidence interval that suggests the potential for a clinically meaningful difference. Delirium incidence was lower in the remifentanil group (77.4% vs. 96.4%; χ²(1) = 4.99, P = 0.03, φ = 0.29). Although daily analgesic costs were significantly higher for remifentanil than fentanyl ($29.5 vs. $13.9; P < 0.01), total sedation-analgesia costs were similar between the groups ($45.3 vs. $26.2; P = 0.13). Conclusion Although remifentanil did not significantly reduce ventilation duration compared to fentanyl, it was associated with a significantly lower delirium incidence, suggesting potential advantages in sedation.
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.