Skip to main content
Download PDF

Determination of the median effective dose of sufentanil for inhibiting the laryngeal mask insertion response in geriatric patients: a prospective, double-blinded, dose–response trial

BMC Anesthesiology volume 22, Article number: 216 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Laryngeal mask airway(LMA) have been widely used in clinical practice. Irritation to the patient during the insertion of a laryngeal mask can cause hemodynamic fluctuations, which is particularly unsafe for geriatric patients. We used probit regression analysis to determine the median effective dose of sufentanil to inhibit the response to LMA insertion in geriatric patients.

Methods

A total of 90 patients were selected for the study using the following inclusion criteria: age ≥ 65 years old, ASA grade I–III, and scheduled to undergo intravenous general anesthesia with LMA insertion. Each patient received a dose of sufentanil for anesthesia induction in one of six levels: 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, or 0.3 μg kg−1. LMA insertion was scored with a 3-point, 6-category scale, with scores ≥ 16 indicating effective LMA insertion, and < 16 indicating ineffective LMA insertion. Mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and bispectral index (BIS) were recorded 1 min before induction (T1), 1 min after induction (T2), 1 min after LMA insertion (T3), and 5 min after LMA insertion (T4) in each group. In addition, the plasma norepinephrine (NE) levels and adverse reactions were measured at T2 and T3 in each dosage group.

Results

Probit regression analysis showed that the ED50 of sufentanil inhibiting the response to LMA insertion in geriatric patients was 0.18 μg kg−1 (95% CI: 0.16–0.21 μg kg−1), and the ED95 was 0.31 μg kg−1 (95% CI: 0.27–0.38 μg kg−1), and the probit(p) = -2.34 + 12.90 × ln(Dose)(\(\chi^{2}\) = 0.725, p = 0.948). Among all the patients, the number of effective LMA insertions was 57 (group A), and the number of ineffective LMA insertions was 33 (group B). The MAP, HR, and NE in group B were significantly higher than in group A at T3.

Conclusions

Sufentanil can effectively inhibit the patient’s response to LMA insertion, with stable hemodynamics and small stress response. The ED50 and ED95 were 0.18 μg kg−1 (95% CI: 0.16–0.21 μg kg−1) and 0.31 μg kg−1(95% CI: 0.27–0.38 μg kg−1), respectively.

Trial registration

This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration number: ChiCTR2100051827) on October 6, 2021.

Peer Review reports

Background

According to the latest Chinese census results from 2021, the proportion of the population over the age of 65 has reached 13.5%. With the aging of the population, more and more geriatric patients need surgery. Due to the functional decline of vital organs in geriatric patients, the compensatory response to stress starts slowly and the degree of compensation is small. Therefore, it is important to implement stable anesthesia induction for geriatric patients. The LMA can quickly establish the airway, with little stimulation to the patient, and the cardiovascular response to the insertion is mild [1], with no need for muscle relaxants. The LMA can retain spontaneous breathing, prevent accidental occurrence of mask or intubation difficulties during induction [2], and greatly improve the safety of general anesthesia induction in geriatric patients.

Some non-medical factors also significantly influence the insertional response of the LMA, such as the type of LMA is also an important factor affecting the LMA insertion response. I-gel LMA, a noninflatable cuff made of thermoplastic elastomer, has a successful and shorter duration of insertion, and with less hemodynamic response compared to classic LMA with an inflatable cuff during general anesthesia [3]. Moreover, Supreme LMA requires more lower concentration of end-tidal sevoflurane than ProSeal LMA insertion [4].

When the LMA is inserted, it stimulates the throat and causes discomfort to the patient, so appropriate induction of anesthesia is often required. The preferred anesthetic for LMA insertion is propofol [5], because of its ability to inhibit laryngeal reflexes and relax the jaw [6]. However, propofol has a strong circulatory inhibitory effect, which often causes a significant drop in blood pressure, which is more pronounced in geriatric patients or patients with insufficient effective circulating blood volume. Because etomidate has little effect on circulation [7, 8], it is often used for induction in geriatric patients, but etomidate does not inhibit the upper airway reflex, and it can make LMA insertion very difficult when used alone, so it needs to be combined with opioids. Among the opioids used, sufentanil is often used for anesthesia in the elderly. Compared with fentanyl, sufentanil can relieve myocardial stress in geriatric patients [9], and increase hemodynamic stability and brain tissue oxygenation after anesthesia induction [10].

Although sufentanil has advantages in anesthesia induction in geriatric patients, inappropriate doses can have adverse effects. If the dose is too small, when the LMA is inserted, the patient may experience physical movement, choking, laryngospasm, and severe hemodynamic fluctuations, resulting in failure of the procedure and adverse cardiovascular events; if the dose is too large, cardiovascular function may be inhibited, resulting in a drop in blood pressure and slowing of the heart rate. Therefore, some researchers have studied the optimal dose of sufentanil when the LMA is inserted. Roshdi [11] studied the optimal effect-site concentration of sufentanil when a LMA is inserted under the induction of 4.0 μg mL−1 target-controlled infusion of propofol. Li et al. [12] studied the optimal dose of sufentanil for satisfactory LMA intubation in Chinese pediatric patients under the induction of 2.5 mg kg−1 propofol. At present, there are few studies on the required dose of sufentanil for LMA insertion in geriatric patients during etomidate induction. Our study explored the median effective dose of sufentanil to inhibit the response to LMA insertion in geriatric patients.

Methods

Design

We conducted a prospective, double-blinded, dose–response trial to determine the median effective dose of sufentanil for inhibiting the laryngeal mask insertion response in geriatric patients.

Subjects and setting

A total of 90 patients who were ≥ 65 years old, had ASA grade I–III, and were scheduled to undergo intravenous general anesthesia with LMA insertion in our hospital were enrolled in the study.This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Anqing Hospital Affiliated to Anhui Medical University, and all patients signed informed consent. On October 6, 2021, our study was registered at the China Clinical Trial Registration Center (Registration number: ChiCTR2100051827).

Exclusion criteria were as follows: severe hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥ 180 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 110 mmHg), long-term use of opioid analgesics, BMI > 30 kg/m2, drug allergy, adrenal insufficiency, or unsuitability for LMA insertion.

Study protocol

After the patient entered the operating room, we opened the venous channel for infusion, monitored the patient’s blood pressure, electrocardiogram, pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2), body temperature, and bispectral index (BIS), intravenously injected midazolam 0.04 mg kg−1, put the patient on mask oxygen inhalation at 5 L min−1, and performed anesthesia induction after 10 min. Sufentanil (Humanwell Healthcare, Hubei, China) was formulated by the anesthesia nurse into six doses: 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, and 0.3 μg kg−1. Each dose was prepared in 0.9% normal saline to a total of 5 mL and was then given a number. The anesthesia nurse did not participate in subsequent experiments. A random number was generated by the computer for each patient, and the dose matching the generated number was used for the patient. This way, the anesthesiologist did not know the induction dose of each patient. Sufentanil was slowly injected for more than 30 s. After 3 min, 0.3 mg kg−1 etomidate was slowly injected for more than 30 s (Nhwa Pharmaceutical, Jiangsu, China). An I-gel LMA was inserted 2 min later, when the patient lost consciousness and the eyelash reflex disappeared. The patient was connected to the anesthesia machine and the waveform of end-tidal carbon dioxide tension was monitored (machine-assisted breathing was performed if there was no spontaneous breathing). If the LMA showed poor ventilation or air leakage, the LMA was re-inserted and tested again. If satisfactory ventilation was not achieved after two attempts, rocuronium was injected for endotracheal intubation. Mechanical ventilation method: Tidal volume 8–10 ml kg−1, Ventilation frequency 12 beats min−1, and I:E was 1:2, ventilation parameters were adjusted according to PetCO2, and PetCO2 was maintained between 35 and 45 mmHg. The respiratory depression of the patients in the induction period was observed. If the SpO2 was lower than 92%, an oxygen mask was provided to assist breathing. Five minutes after LMA insertion, we intravenously pumped cisatracurium 2–5 μg kg−1 min−1, propofol 2–6 mg kg−1 h−1, and remifentanil 0.1–0.2 μg kg−1 min−1 for intraoperative maintenance; analgesics were given before the operation. If the mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) was 20% lower than the baseline blood pressure, 5–10 mg of ephedrine was intravenously injected. If the heart rate (HR) was lower than 50 beats/min, 0.3–0.5 mg of intravenous atropine was administered.

Measurements

The following outcomes were assessed: (1) The LMA insertion condition was assessed by the anesthetic assistant, who remained blinded to the dose of sufentanil. The LMA insertion conditions were evaluated through a 3-point, 6-category scale (Table 1); (2) Hemodynamics: MAP, HR, and BIS at 1 min before induction (T1), 1 min after induction (T2), 1 min after LMA insertion (T3), and 5 min after LMA insertion (T4); (3) 2 ml of venous blood was drawn at T2 and T3, and the plasma norepinephrine (NE) concentration was measured by high performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS); (4) Adverse effects: Ephedrine or atropine required during the induction period, duration of apnea > 2 min, or any of the following adverse reactions: choking, muscle stiffness, injection pain, muscle tremor, intraoperative awareness, or throat discomfort.

Table 1 The score of LMA insertion
Full size table

Statistical analysis

The Cochran-Armitage Test for the trend in the incidence of inhibiting the LMA insertion response was utilized to perform sample size calculations using PASS (version 11.0.7; NCSS, LLC, Kaysville, UT). Based on our preliminary data that incidence of inhibiting the LMA insertion response was 9, 14, 33, 56, 90, and 94%, respectively for the six sufentanil injection doses of 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25 and 0.3 μg kg−1, our calculation indicated that a total sample size of 72 patients (12 per group) would provide 82% power to detect a linear trend using a two-sided Z test and a significance level of 0.05. To account for possible dropouts, we enrolled 15 patients for each group, so the 90 patients is an adequate sample size.

All data were analyzed with the SPSS 21.0 statistical software. Normally distributed measurement data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (\(\overline{\mathrm{x} }\) ± SD), and independent sample t-test was used for comparison. Categorical data were compared using the χ2 test or Fisher's exact probability method. The median effective dose of sufentanil was analyzed by probit regression analysis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Demographic characteristics (age, weight, and BMI), ASA classification, and duration of surgery were compared between the two groups (Table 2).

Table 2 Demographic characteristics, ASA status, BMI, hypertension, and duration of surgery
Full size table

Ninety-eight patients were initially enrolled in this study, but three patients did not consent to participate, two patients were excluded from this study, and three patients were excluded after LMA insertion because of poor ventilation of the LMA. A patient cohort flow diagram is provided in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Participant cohort flow diagram

Full size image

A dose–response curve was plotted by probit analysis and is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Dose–response curve of sufentanil for inhibiting the LMA insertion response. Probability unit vs. dose. Probit regression analysis of the dose–response curve revealed that the ED50 of sufentanil for the inhibition of the response induced by LMA insertion in geriatric patients was 0.18 μg kg−1 (95% CI: 0.16–0.21 μg kg−1), and the ED95 was 0.31 μg kg−1 (95% CI: 0.27–0.38 μg kg−1), and the probit(p) = -2.34 + 12.90 × ln(Dose)(\(\chi^{2}\) = 0.725, p = 0.948)

Full size image

The changes in MAP, HR, BIS, and the concentration of NE are shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Comparison of MAP, HR,BIS,NE in both groups mean arterial pressure (A), the heart rate (B), bispectralindex (C), the plasma norepinephrine concentration(D):T1, 1 min before induction (T1);T2, 1 min after induction;T3, 1 min after LMA insertion;T4, 5 min after LMA insertion;*P < 0.05 for independent sample t-test comparing variales between two groups

Full size image

The MAP and HR of group A did not change significantly at any time point, but the MAP and HR of group B increased significantly at time point T3 and was significantly higher than that of group A (P < 0.001, P = 0.039; Fig. 3A and B). Norepinephrine did not differ significantly between T2 and T3 in group A after LMA insertion, whereas it increased significantly in group B at time point T3 and was significantly higher in group B than in group A (P = 0.014, as shown in Fig. 3D). The BIS decreased after induction. At the time of LMA insertion and 5 min after, the mean of the two groups remained between 40 and 60. There was no significant difference between the groups at each time, as shown in Fig. 3C.

The main adverse reactions in two groups are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 The incidence of main adverse reactions
Full size table

In both groups, the MAP decline did not reach 20% before induction, the HR was not lower than 50 beats min−1, and there was no need to use ephedrine or atropine. The number of patients with apnea duration > 2 min was significantly higher in group A than in group B (P = 0.004). The incidence of choking in group A was 10.5%, higher than that in group B (3%), but there was no statistical difference between the two groups. The incidence of throat discomfort in group B was 12.5%, higher than that in group A, but there was no statistical difference between the two groups. Muscle stiffness, bradycardia, injection pain, muscle fibrillation, or intraoperative awareness did not appear in either group during the observation period.

Discussion

The present study was to determine the ED50 of sufentanil for inhibiting the LMA insertion response in geriatric patients, the probit analysis shown that the ED50 and ED95 of sufentanil were determined based on whether effective LMA insertion was achieved, and they were 0.18 μg kg−1 (95% CI: 0.16–0.21 μg kg−1), and the ED95 was 0.31 μg kg−1 (95% CI: 0.27–0.38 μg kg−1), respectively.

The 3-point, 6-category scale used in the assessment of LMA insertion is a widely accepted and mature assessment method [13, 14]. A comprehensive assessment of LMA insertion is carried out through two indicators of LMA insertion difficulty (mouth opening and insertion resistance) and four indicators of insertion response (swallowing, choking, head or body movement, and laryngospasm). Effective LMA insertion is defined as a score of ≥ 16. The score scale was used to grade insertion conditions and that had been used successfully in previous studies [15,16,17], we adopted the scale method to grade insertion conditions because it is a classic and reliable evaluation scale.

In the study by Li on the optimal dose of sufentanil in Chinese pediatric LMA insertion [12], the ED50 and ED95 of sufentanil for LMA insertion were found to be 0.064 μg kg−1 and 0.177 μg kg−1, respectively. Choi et al. [18] showed that sufentanil can effectively reduce the cardiovascular response during double-lumen bronchial intubation under laryngoscopy, and 0.3 μg kg−1 can attenuate the cardiovascular response during double-lumen bronchial intubation. In a previous experiment, laryngeal masks were inserted in four consecutive cases without using sufentanil, the score of all patients was < 16 points on the 3-point, 6-category scale, and the hemodynamic changes of the patients were large. Based on this, we set sufentanil to six doses, namely, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, and 0.3 μg kg−1.

Sufentanil is an opioid with a strong analgesic effect, which can effectively inhibit the stimulation of LMA insertion and maintain the stability of hemodynamics [19]. The MAP and HR of group A did not change significantly at any time point during the induction period. In group B, the MAP and HR increased significantly. At time point T3, MAP and HR were higher in group B than in group A (P < 0.001, P = 0.039). During this induction process, none of the MAP drops reached the 20% pre-induction level, and the HR did not fall below 50 beats min−1, so there was no need to use ephedrine or atropine.

The depth of sedation in patients with BIS reaction is mainly related to the dosage of diazepam, propofol, and etomidate [20]. In our experiment, 0.3 mg kg−1 etomidate was used. BIS remained between 40–60 for 5 min after LMA insertion, which fully met the requirements of anesthesia and sedation. In addition, there was no intraoperative awareness after surgery, which indirectly supports the idea that the depth of sedation in patients with BIS reaction is mainly related to the dosage of diazepam, propofol, and etomidate. It has been reported that sufentanil has a sedative effect and would affect the BIS value [21], but we found that there was no statistical difference in the BIS between the two groups at any time point; this discrepancy may be related to the small sample size in our study.

External stimuli can excite the body’s sympathetic nerves, causing the secretion of catecholamines in the body, resulting in increases in plasma dopamine, epinephrine, and norepinephrine [22, 23]. We found that during LMA insertion, norepinephrine was significantly increased in group B. At T3, the comparison between group B and group A was P = 0.014, which may be related to the stimulation of sympathetic nerves induced by LMA insertion. In group A, there was no significant difference in norepinephrine between two time points, indicating that sufentanil can effectively inhibit the stress response [24].

In the clinical application of sufentanil, adverse reactions sometimes occur, and the adverse reactions are often related to the dose used. The most common reactions are choking [25, 26] and respiratory depression [27], and the incidence of choking has been reported to be 31%–45.8%. In our study, the incidences of choking in groups A and B were 10.5% and 3%, lower than those reported, which may be related to the smaller dose we used and the slower bolus injection rate. After a patient is given sufentanil, the respiratory rate is often slowed down. Apnea usually occurs after etomidate injection, and the LMA is inserted 2 min later. If breathing does not resume, assisted or controlled breathing will be performed. The incidence of pulse oxygen below 92% in the whole process of induction is low, which ensures the safety of geriatric patients. Therefore, only the number of cases with apnea duration > 2 min was counted. The number of cases with apnea duration > 2 min in group A was greater than in group B, suggesting suggesting that respiratory depression might be related to the dose of sufenta nil. The ventilation difficulties caused by sufentanil mainly occur in the closure of the glottis or supraglottis [28], which can be quickly resolved after LMA insertion. In our study, machine-assisted breathing was safely performed after LMA insertion, and there was no difficulty in ventilation, so it is completely acceptable for geriatric patients to experience respiratory depression during sufentanil induction.

Some patients undergoing general anesthesia experience throat discomfort after LMA insertion, which is related to factors such as the poor positioning of the LMA and the repeated insertion of the LMA. The incidence rate is 9%–17.5% [29, 30]. In our study, the incidence of throat discomfort in the two groups was low, and there was no significant difference between the two groups. This may be because (1) we applied dyclonine mucilage containing local anesthetic ingredients on the back of the LMA [31], which reduced the patient's feeling of discomfort, and (2) after two unsuccessful attempts of LMA insertion, tracheal intubation was used decisivelyto avoid damage to the throat caused by repeated operations.

There were some limitations in the present study, the serum level of sufentanil was not measured, low concentrations of sufentanil affect postoperative pain scores, which increases the risk of postoperative delusions in elderly patients [32]. In addition, we used 0.05ug as the dose interval, which would require a small sample size and the statistical results would have increased bias,a smaller dose interval would provide a more precise result,which may provide more comprehensive data for sufentanil dosage during LMA insertion in geriatric patients. Moreover, we did not evaluate the muscle shivering response after etomidate injection, which might affect the assessment of insertion condition.

Conclusions

Sufentanil can effectively inhibit the patient’s response to LMA insertion, with stable hemodynamics and small stress response. The ED50 and ED95 were 0.18 μg kg−1 (95% CI: 0.16–0.21 μg kg−1) and 0.31 μg kg−1 (95% CI: 0.27–0.38 μg kg−1), respectively.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets collected and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

LMA:

Laryngeal mask airway

ED50:

Median effective dose

ED95:

95% Effective dose

MAP:

Mean arterial blood pressure

HR:

Heart rate

BIS:

Bispectral index

NE:

Norepinephrine

CI:

Confidence intervals

BMI:

Body Mass Index

ASA:

American Society of Anesthesiologists

References

  1. Liu Y, Mang Su, Li W, et al. Comparison of general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation, combined spinal-epidural anesthesia, and general anesthesia with laryngeal mask airway and nerve block for intertrochanteric fracture surgeries in elderly patients: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2019;19(1):230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kendall MC. Laryngeal mask airway as a rescue device for failed endotracheal intubation. Eur J Emerg Med. 2019;26(1):73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pratheeba N, Ramya GS, Ranjan RV, et al. Comparison of i-gel™ and laryngeal mask airway Classic™ in terms of ease of insertion and hemodynamic response: a randomized observational study. Anesth Essays Res. 2016;10(3):521–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Monteserín-Matesanz C, González T, Anadón-Baselga MJ, et al. Supreme™ laryngeal mask airway insertion requires a lower concentration of sevoflurane than ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway insertion during target-controlled remifentanil infusion: a prospective randomised controlled study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020;20(1):5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Shen Y, Wang YT, Peng ZZ, et al. Comparison of the ED50 propofol requirements during the insertion of laryngeal mask airway Ambu AuraFlex with Ambu AuraOnce in children undergoing strabismus surgery. Clin Pharm Ther. 2021;46(6):1629–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Abedini N, Parish M, Farzin H, et al. The determination of an appropriate time for placement of the classic laryngeal mask airway in patients undergoing general anesthesia. Anesth Pain Med. 2018;8(2):e64427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dai ZL, Cai XT, Gao WL, et al. Etomidate vs propofol in coronary heart disease patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery: a randomized clinical trial. World J Case. 2021;9(6):1293–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Yao Y, He L, Fang N, et al. Anesthetic induction with etomidate in cardiac surgical patients: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2021;35(4):1073–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Yang Y, Teng X, Zhu J. Sufentanil blunts the myocardial stress induced by tracheal intubation in older adult patients with coronary heart disease better than equipotent fentanyl. Ann Palliat Med. 2020;9(6):3909–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Poterman M, Kalmar AF, Buisman PL, et al. Improved haemodynamic stability and cerebral tissue oxygenation after induction of anaesthesia with sufentanil compared to remifentanil: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020;20(1):258.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Al-Metwalli RR. The optimal effect-site concentration of sufentanil for laryngeal mask insertion during induction with target-controlled propofol infusion at 40.μg/mL. Saudi J Anaesth. 2014;8(2):215–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Li Na, Chen Y, Ouyang B, et al. The optimal bolus dose of sufentanil for satisfactory laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion conditions in chinese pediatric patients: a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial (CONSORT). Medicine. 2019;98(10):e14711.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sinha R, Shende D, Garg R. Comparison of propofol (1%) with admixture (1:1) of thiopentone (1.25%) and propofol (0.5%) for laryngeal mask airway insertion in children undergoing elective eye surgery: double-masked randomized clinical trial. Indian J Anaesth. 2010;54(2):104–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang XH, Huang K, Yan H, et al. The median effective dose (ED50) of cisAtracurium for laryngeal mask airway insertion during general Anaesthesia for patients undergoing urinary surgery. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020;20(1):68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chui PT, Cheam EW. The use of low-dose mivacurium to facilitate insertion of the laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia. 1998;53(3):491–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hui JK, Critchley LA, Karmakar MK, et al. Co-administration of alfentanilpropofol improves laryngeal mask airway insertion compared to fentanyl-propofol. Can J Anaesth. 2002;49(5):508–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Yu AL, Critchley LA, Lee A, et al. Alfentanil dosage when inserting the classic laryngeal mask airway. Anesthesiology. 2006;105(4):684–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Choi BH, Lee YC. Effective bolus dose of sufentanil to attenuate cardiovascular responses in laryngoscopic double-lumen endobronchial intubation. Anesth Pain Med. 2016;6(2):e33640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nazir M, Salim B, Khan FA. Pharmacological agents for reducing the haemodynamic response to tracheal intubation in paediatric patients: a systematic review. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2016;44(6):681–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Rajpurohit V, Chaudhary K, Kishan R, et al. Bi-Spectral index-guided comparison of propofol versus etomidate for induction in electroconvulsive therapy. Anesth Essays Res. 2020;14(3):504–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Weber PC. Investigating propofol-sufentanil interaction using clinical endpoints and processed electroencephalography: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Minerva Anestesiol. 2019;85(3):271–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang J, Tu Q, Gan JH, et al. Preemptive anti-stress response effects of oxycodone versus sufentanil for patients undergoing cardiac valve replacement: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev. 2020;9(3):321–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Liu L, Li BY, Cao Q, et al. Effects of additional intraoperative administration of sufentanil on postoperative pain, stress and inflammatory responses in patients undergoing laparoscopic myomectomy: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Pain Res. 2020;13(8):2187–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Guo Y, Wang D, Yang X, et al. Effects of different sufentanil target concentrations on the MACBAR of sevoflurane in patients with carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum stimulus. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020;20(1):239.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Wang J, Duan JJ, Wang QY, et al. Pretreatment with nalbuphine prevents sufentanil-induced cough during the anesthesia induction: a randomized controlled trial. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2020;16(4):281–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Xiong ZC, Yi P, Song JP, et al. Dezocine prevents sufentanil-induced cough during general anesthesia induction: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020;20(1):154.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Yao Y, Su ZQ, Chen Y, et al. Safety and efficacy of sufentanil combined with midazolam in bronchoscopy under conscious sedation: retrospective study of 11,158 cases. Thorac Dis. 2019;11(10):4127–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Abrams JT, Horrow JC, Bennett JA, et al. Upper airway closure: a primary source of difficult ventilation with sufentanil induction of anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 1996;83(3):629–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Gong YH, Xu XH, Wang J, et al. Laryngeal mask airway reduces incidence of post-operative sore throat after thyroid surgery compared with endotracheal tube: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020;20(1):16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Lin GJW, Lim YC, Wang JX, et al. An audit of post-operative sore throat using different laryngeal mask airways. Indian J Anaesth. 2020;64(6):513–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Li H, Yue Y, Qu Y. Lidocaine for postoperative sore throat: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Minerva Anestesiol. 2020;86(5):546–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kim H-J, Kim D-K, Kim H-Y, et al. Risk factors of emergence agitation in adults undergoing general anesthesia for nasal surgery. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;8(1):46–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all staff members in the Department of anesthesia and operating room of AnQing Municipal Hospitals of Anhui Medical University. The authors sincerely thank Dr. WeiBing Wang, for his contributions to the randomization design and his assistance with the study. The authors acknowledge Miss. HongPing Yu,Dr. Hui Zhou,Dr. Huang Xu, who performed data extraction, and Dr. JinBo Xiao, who helped review the study design and date analysis.

Funding

The authors have received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, The Affiliated AnQing Municipal Hospitals of Anhui Medical University, 352th, Renming Road, AnQing, 246003, AnHui Province, China

    ShiFang Wang, WeiBing Wang, JinBo Xiao, HongPing Yu, Hui Zhou & Huang Xu

Authors
  1. ShiFang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. WeiBing Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. JinBo Xiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. HongPing Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hui Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Huang Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SFW,WBW and JBX conceived the study and its design, the evaluation of the 3-point, 6-category scale was performed by HPY, acquisition of data by HZ and HX, drafting of the article and critical revision by SFW and WBW, and all authors hereby give final approval of the version to be submitted and any revisions.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to WeiBing Wang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the medical ethical committees of AnQing municipal hospital of Anhui Medical University, China(No,2021-07-12). All patients or their legal guardian(s) gave written informed consent. The study was carried out accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, S., Wang, W., Xiao, J. et al. Determination of the median effective dose of sufentanil for inhibiting the laryngeal mask insertion response in geriatric patients: a prospective, double-blinded, dose–response trial. BMC Anesthesiol 22, 216 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-022-01758-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-022-01758-7

Keywords

BMC Anesthesiology

ISSN: 1471-2253

Contact us