Hureau, Maxence (M);Caillau, Emeline (E);Labreuche, Julien (J);Herbet, Mathilde (M);Tavernier, Benoît (B);De Jonckheere, Julien (J);Jeanne, Mathieu (M);

Author information

PLoS One.2025 May 05;20(5):e0322384.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0322384

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Monitoring the nociception/antinociception balance for analgesic guidance during general anesthesia may improve the quality of anesthesia. The University Hospital of Lille (France) has developed an expert software system for automatic remifentanil administration based on the continuous monitoring of the Analgesia Nociception Index (MDoloris, France). We assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of the ANI-REMI-LOOP "expert-system software" during burn surgery in a monocentric randomized controlled trial.

METHODS: The trial was approved by the French Ethics Committee, and all patients gave written informed consent. From 2018 to 2022, 52 adults were randomized into two groups: manual remifentanil infusion (standard practice) or automatic remifentanil infusion (expert-system software) during BIS-guided propofol anesthesia at the burn center of the hospital. In the standard practice group, remifentanil administration was based on Minto's model and guided by the analgesia nociception index. In both groups, propofol was administered based on Schnider's model and guided by the BiSpectral Index (Covidien). The primary endpoint was the cumulative remifentanil dose administered during anesthesia and secondary endpoints were related to the clinical safety of automatic remifentanil administration with the incidence and duration of hypotension, bradycardia, hypertension or tachycardia related to nociception. After anesthesia, the endpoints were pain and analgesic requirements during 2 hours. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Data are presented as median [1st to 3rd quartile].

RESULTS: The cumulative remifentanil dose was significantly lower in the automatic group 0.125 µg.kg-1.min-1 [0.106 to 0.149] vs. 0.152 µg.kg-1.min-1 [0.137 to 0.237], p = 0.004), and the cumulative proportion of time with hemodynamic impairment or reactivity was significantly lower in the expert-system automatic group 4.2% [2.5 to 5.7] vs. 19.4% [6.9 to 59.9], p = 0.010). There were no safety issues, and pain and analgesic requirements were similar in both groups after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS: Automatic remifentanil administration demonstrated good clinical performances during propofol anesthesia for burn surgery. It is likely that these results can be extrapolated to any surgical setting under general anesthesia, but this needs to be tested with further randomized clinical trials.