[A comparative study of intravenous opioid analgesia. Sufentanil and alfentanil for extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy in urologic patients].

UNLABELLED: Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is the method of choice for the treatment of solitary stones in the kidney or ureter. Early lithotripters required prolonged immobility of the patient and caused considerable pain, necessitating general or epidural anaesthesia during the procedure. Modern lithotripters are quicker, but still require analgesia. Intravenous opioids are currently the drugs in favour. The opioids most commonly used are fentanyl and its shorter-acting analogue, alfentanil. The latter has a more rapid onset and, because of its reduced lipid solubility, is less cumulative. Sufentanil is a new opioid that is also of the phenylpiperidone group and has been recently licensed and introduced in Germany. Its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties suggest an intermediate duration of action, high analgesic potency, and cardiovascular stability with diminished respiratory depression. In this prospective double-blind study, the effects of alfentanil and sufentanil on cardiovascular and respiratory parameters, the quality of analgesia, degree of sedation and the number and type of side-effects were compared.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: After giving informed consent and with the approval of the hospital ethics committee, 62 patients (ASA I or II) were investigated. They were randomly allocated to two groups, either receiving sufentanil (n = 32) or alfentanil (n = 30) during ESWL. No premedication was given. Excluded were patients with pain prior to treatment, patients treated with a spasmolytic or analgesic drug and those who had undergone ESWL within the last 6 months. The loading dose was given as a 5-min infusion to each group. The heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, percutaneous oxygen saturation (SpO2), and the transcutaneous capillary carbon dioxide tension (PicCO2) were recorded prior to the procedure (i.e. before administration of opioid), after 1000 and after 2000 shock waves and then 1 and 2 h after the end of lithotripsy. After 1000 and 2000 shock waves, and 1 an 2 h after the treatment, the patients were asked to express their degree of tiredness and pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS). The occurrence of side-effects such as nausea, vomiting, pruritus or other unpleasant sensations were noted by an anaesthesia nurse. Simultaneously, the anaesthetist recorded his/her impression of the patient's tiredness and degree of pain, both by using the VAS. He was not allowed to question the patient, nor was he aware of the patient's own scores. At the end of the observation period both the patient and the anaesthetist related their overall satisfaction with the anaesthetic procedure, again by using the VAS. Data were analysed with the Mann-Whitney-U for comparisons between groups and with the Wilcoxon test within each group. The side-effects were analysed with the Chi-square test.

RESULTS: The systolic and diastolic blood pressure remained stable in both groups during and after treatment. The mean heart rate was different between the two groups at the beginning, and after the end of the treatment it dropped in both groups, but no significant difference was seen between groups. The PicCO2 rose from an initial mean of 36.8 mm Hg to a maximum of 44.6 mm Hg after 1000 shock waves in the sufentanil group, and from 37.8 mm Hg to 46.0 mm Hg after 2000 shock waves in the alfentanil group. The differences were significant within groups until 1 h after the end of the treatment, but there was no significant difference between groups. The oxygen saturation SpO2 dropped slightly in both groups. The differences were not significant between groups. In the alfentanil group, one patient had a maximum carbon dioxide tension of 83 mm Hg after 2000 shock waves, whereas in the sufentanil treated group the oxygen saturation fell to 72% in one case. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)