Why the study?
Does computer-assisted continuous infusion of fentanyl improve hemodynamic stability and plasma concentration control compared to manual administration in patients undergoing cardiac anesthesia?
Does computer-assisted continuous infusion of fentanyl improve hemodynamic stability and plasma concentration control compared to manual administration in patients undergoing cardiac anesthesia?
Computer-assisted continuous infusion of fentanyl provides better hemodynamic stability and requires fewer interventions than manual bolus administration during cardiac anesthesia.
CACI fentanyl may improve hemodynamic stability in cardiac anesthesia; hypothesis-generating and requires RCTs before practice change.
The design and implementation of a computer-assisted continuous infusion (CACI) system to rapidly attain and maintain a constant plasma fentanyl concentration (PFC), as well as a CACI system that allowed the anesthesiologist to change the plasma level of fentanyl during cardiac anesthesia, were developed. In 30 patients (three groups of 10 patients each) these two automated methods of fentanyl infusion were compared with a manual fentanyl administration method. There was excellent agreement in the measured/predicted PFC ratios with the CACI stable fentanyl level system (ratio = 0.99, n = 91) and in the CACI variable fentanyl level system (ratio = 1.08, n = 79). The stable fentanyl level group of patients received significantly more (P less than 0.05) fentanyl than did the other groups. The CACI variable fentanyl level group of patients had greater hemodynamic stability, required significantly (P less than 0.05) fewer adjuvant drug interventions and experienced significantly (P less than 0.05) fewer hypotensive and hypertensive episodes than the manual, bolus fentanyl (control) group. These data show that a computer-assisted automated infusion of fentanyl is safe and as good as manual methods. CACI has greater potential as a new method of intravenous anesthesia administration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alvis et al. (1985) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: