Emergency 2016; 4 (2): 92-96 OR I G I N A L RE S E A RC H Remifentanil versus Fentanyl/Midazolam in Painless Re- duction of Anterior Shoulder Dislocation; a Randomized Clinical Trial Mohammad Gharavifard1, Azadeh Tafakori1∗, Hamid Zamani Moghadam2 1. Anesthesia Department, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. Received: May 2015; Accepted: September 2015 Abstract: Introduction: Performance of painful diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is common in emergency depart- ment (ED), and procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is a fundamental skill for every emergency physician. This study was aim to compare the efficacy of remifentanil with fentanyl/midazolam in painless reduction of an- terior shoulder dislocation. Methods: In this randomized, double blind, clinical trial the procedural character- istics, patients satisfaction as well as adverse events were compared between fentanyl/midazolam and remifen- tanil for PSA of 18–64 years old patients, which were presented to ED following anterior shoulder dislocation. Results: 96 cases were randomly allocated to two groups (86.5% male). There were no significant difference be- tween groups regarding baseline characteristics. Remifentanil group had lower duration of procedure (2.5 ± 1.6 versus 4.6±1.8 minutes, p < 0.001), higher pain reduction (53.7±13.3 versus 33.5±19.6, p < 0.001), lower failure rate (1 (2.1%) versus 15 (31.3%), p < 0.001), higher satisfaction (p = 0.005). Adverse events were seen in 12 (25%) patients in midazolam/fentanyl and 8 (16.7%) cases in remifentanil group (p = 0.122). Conclusion: It seems that use of remifentanil resulted in lower procedural time, lower failure rate, and lower pain during procedure as well as higher patient satisfaction in comparison with midazolam/fentanyl combination in anterior shoulder dislocation. Keywords: Conscious sedation; midazolam; fentanyl; remifentanil [supplementary concept]; shoulder dislocation © Copyright (2015) Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences Cite this article as: Gharavifard M, Tafakori A, Zamani Moghadam H. Remifentanil versus Fentanyl/Midazolam in Painless Reduction of Anterior Shoulder Dislocation; a Randomized Clinical Trial. Emergency. 2016; 4(2):92-96. 1. Introduction P erformance of painful diagnostic and therapeutic pro- cedures is common in emergency department (ED), and procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is a fun- damental and required skill for every emergency physician (1, 2). With the wide range of procedures and high patient population, the ability to individualize PSA and maximize the risk/benefit ratio for each unique situation is essential (3). One of the common painful procedures in ED is reduction of dislocated shoulder joints. The glenohumeral joint is the most commonly dislocated major joint in the body. The an- ∗Corresponding Author: Azadeh Tafakori; Emergency Department, Emam Reza Hospital, Mashhad, Iran; Tel: +989173147528; Email: dr.azadeh. tafakori@hotmail.com. nual incidence is 17 per 100,000, and two distinct age peaks are recognized, the first in men 20 to 30 years of age and the second in older women (4). Analgesia and muscle re- laxation through procedural sedation are often used to facili- tate reduction (5). Fentanyl combined with midazolam is fre- quently used as a safe PSA agent in ED (3). However, caution must be exercised when using benzodiazepines and opioids together because the risk for hypoxia and apnea is signiïňĄ- cantly greater than when either is used alone (6, 7). Remifen- tanil is a relatively new synthetic opioid with a potency comparable to fentanyl but an exceptionally short context- sensitive half-life of only 3–5 minutes (8, 9). However, cur- rently there are insufficient published studies to warrant its routine use. Efficacy of remifentanil in combination with other agents is supported by several clinical trials (10–14), but few studies have described the use of remifentanil alone during performing procedures (15–17). The aim of this ran- This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: www.jemerg.com dr.azadeh.tafakori@hotmail.com dr.azadeh.tafakori@hotmail.com 93 Emergency 2016; 4 (2): 92-96 domized clinical trial was to compare the efficacy of a pure analgesia-based sedation regimen with remifentanil with a conventional regimen consisting of fentanyl/midazolam for moderate sedation of patients with anterior shoulder dislo- cation. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Study design and settings This study was a prospective, randomized, single-center, par- allel group clinical trial, comparing fentanyl/midazolam to remifentanil alone for moderate sedation in patients aged 18–64 years with anterior shoulder dislocation, who were presented to the ED of Imam Reza Hospital, Mashhad for closed reduction. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of our institute (91/570419 November 4, 2012) and registered in Iranian registry of clinical trials under the number IRCT: 2013011312115N1. Informed consent was obtained from all the selected patients after explaining the study. 2.2. Participants The studied subjects were selected using convenience sam- pling among the patients presented to the ED of a university- affiliated tertiary care medical center over a 9-month pe- riod between February 2013 and October 2013, with anterior shoulder dislocation and requiring closed reduction. Those aged 18–64 years with physical condition I (healthy and nor- mal patients without previous medical history) and II (pa- tients with mild systemic disease with no functional limita- tion) according to the classification of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) were enrolled. All subjects with his- tory of allergy to benzodiazepines and narcotics; prolonged use of opioids or alcohol; consumption of sedative or anal- gesic drugs before presenting to ED; sleep obstructive apnea syndrome; maxillofacial malformations with high probabil- ity of airway maintenance failure; pregnant; anterior disloca- tion requiring referral to orthopedic operating room; severe trauma and unstable hemodynamics; advanced heart dis- ease; kidney failure; pneumonia; uncontrolled seizures; and finally patients not willing to participate in the study were ex- cluded. 2.3. Intervention Using convenience sampling 96 patients were randomized and included in the intention-to-treat analysis, 48 in fen- tanyl/midazolam group and 48 in remifentanil group. Alloca- tion assignments were generated by an online random num- ber generator from http://www.randomizer.org/ and placed in sealed opaque envelopes to be opened in sequen- tial order by research associates. Physicians (trained senior emergency medicine residents) and patients were blinded to the type of medication. The investigators doing the analy- sis were not the same as those administering drugs and per- forming the procedures. On arrival to the intervention room, where the requirements to protect the airway and prevent aspiration as well as the suitable pulmonary ventilation facilities were predicted, in- travenous access, supplementary oxygen via nasal cannula (2 liter/min), routine pulse oximetry and cardiac monitoring were established for all the patients. Remifentanil hydrochlo- ride (lyophilized powder in sterile vials each containing 1 m g of the compound) was reconstituted diluted with standard diluent. The pharmacy at the institute supplied the fentanyl and midazolam from commercial stock. The patients in group 1 received remifentanil (1 µg /k g body weight bolus intravenous administration at a concentration of 50 µl /ml , and repeated additional titrated to effect doses of 1 µg /k g administered every minute until the completion of reduction), while those in group 2 received 1.5 µg /k g fen- tanyl in combination with 0.1 m g /k g midazolam titrated to effect doses intravenously. It should be noted that in this study, the aim of giving the drugs was to achieve moderate sedation or conscious seda- tion (Ramsay Sedation score 3), which implied the following: patients only responded to commands; airway intervention was not necessary; spontaneous ventilation of the patients was adequate; and the patients cardiovascular function was maintained. The amount of drugs to give score 3 sedation, was determined by an attending emergency medicine spe- cialist and the patient was judged to be sedated adequately to begin undergoing reduction by him. After sedation, reduction of anterior shoulder was performed by employing traction and counter traction method in both groups. Our trained emergency medicine resident rated the pain perceived by the patient before and during the proce- dure using 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). Demographic data were gathered for all patients. The inci- dence of adverse events was determined by a trained emer- gency medicine resident and was marked in a checklist that included the following: respiratory adverse events (the need for supplemental oxygen, ventilation with a bag-mask, ma- neuver practices for maintaining the airway open, insertion of airway, respiratory stimulation, and respiratory depres- sion with SpO2 < 92% at any time during intravenous ad- ministration of the drug until hospital discharge), and non- respiratory complications (dysphoria, vomiting, headache, myoclonus, nausea, stiffness, rash, cough, bronchospasm, laryngospasm, stridor, apnea, seizures, restlessness, agita- tion, and aspiration). At the time of discharge, our trained emergency medicine resident recorded patient satisfaction rate using a Likert scale with four options of excellent, good, average, and poor. This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: www.jemerg.com http://www.randomizer.org/ Gharavifard et al. 94 2.4. Study end-points The primary end-points were pain reduction, procedure time, patient satisfaction, and incidence of respiratory adverse events. Secondary end-points included non- respiratory adverse events. 2.5. Definitions A successful reduction was determined clinically by the pres- ence of a palpable clunk, decrease in pain, and improvement in the range of motion. Procedure time was defined as time from start of traction to completion of reduction. The timing was measured and recorded using a stopwatch. 2.6. Data Analysis IBM SPSS statistics 21 was used for statistical analyses. Cat- egorical variables were reported as number and percentage and continuous ones as mean ± standard deviation. Chi- square and Fisher exact tests were used for comparing cat- egorical variables and t-test for comparing mean between groups. P value < 0.05 was considered statistically signifi- cant. 3. Results 48 cases received remifentanil and 48 received a combina- tion of fentanyl and midazolam (86.5% male). The mean age of remifentanil patients was 39.7 ± 10.3 years compared to 39.8±9.9 years for fentanyl and midazolam group (p = 0.952). In remifentanil group 41 (85.4%) and in fentanyl and mida- zolam group 42 (87.5%) cases were male (p = 0.5). The sub- jects in both groups were stable regarding hemodynamic sta- tus. The mean pain score at baseline was 70.3 ± 10.8 mm for fentanyl and midazolam and 76.6 ± 11.9 mm for remifentanil group (p = 0.008). Since the minimum clinically significant difference of pain score was considered 30 mm for this study, the baseline difference of pain severity between two groups was not clinically significant. Table 1 compares the 2 groups regarding procedure characteristics and observed complica- tions. Respiratory adverse event was not experienced in any of the groups. Non-respiratory adverse events were seen in 12 (25%) patients in midazolam/fentanyl and 8 (16.7%) cases in remifentanil group (p = 0.122). 4. Discussion When choosing a strategy for PSA, it is important to consider the type of procedure being performed (painful or not), the length of the procedure, specific procedural requirements (anxiolysis vs. immobility), and whether sedation needs to be prolonged. A risk-benefit analysis should be conducted before performing PSA and the benefits of reducing anxiety and pain versus the risk of respiratory depression and airway disorders should be measured. The results of the present study demonstrated a significantly lower duration of procedure and lower failure rate in patients that were sedated using remifentanil. On the other hand, the mean pain reduction was significantly higher in remifentanil group. Two groups had the same condition regarding respira- tory and non-respiratory adverse events. The level of patient satisfaction was significantly higher in remifentanil group. Rai et al. studied remifentanil versus propofol for awake fiberoptic intubation and reported signifcantly shorter en- doscopy and intubation times for remifentanil group (15). Dunn et al. demonstrated that propofol and remifentanil provide excellent sedation and analgesia for the reduction of anterior glenohumeral dislocation (10, 11). In Phillips et al. case series an initial bolus dosage of 0.5–3 mc g /k g in- travenous remifentanil with subsequent 0.25–1 mc g /k g bo- luses resulted in mean pain severity of 1.1, mean procedure time of 4 minutes and 17% respiratory complications requir- ing temporary intervention during procedure (16). The lower mean pain severity during the procedure with remifentanil (9.4 ± 8.5 mm vs. 26.1 ± 20.2 mm) revealed greater effectiveness and potency of this drug. This finding was similar to Dunn et al., Phillips et al., Swann et al., Sac- chetti et al., and Cok OY et al. findings (10, 12, 13, 16, 17). Some non-respiratory adverse events have been reported us- ing combination of midazolam/fentanyl (18). Application of remifentanil in combination with midazolam for perform- ing painful procedures in children resulted in high and un- acceptable rate of hypoxemia (14). The incidence of respira- tory and non-respiratory adverse events was similar in both groups of the present study. In this study, significantly higher patient satisfaction was reported for patients sedated with remifentanil, which was compatible with findings of Dunn et al. (10). In the present study, for eliminating further confounding fac- tors, the same technique of reduction was performed for all patients in both groups. The study revealed that remifentanil works effectively in PSA of patients with anterior shoulder dislocation without addition of any sedative agents. Since only adults between the ages of 21 and 64 years were stud- ied, our findings cannot be extrapolated to children and the elderly. 5. Conclusion It seems that use of remifentanil resulted in lower procedu- ral time, lower failure rate, and lower pain during procedure as well as higher patient satisfaction in comparison with mi- dazolam/fentanyl combination for procedural sedation and analgesia in anterior shoulder dislocation. The 2 groups had the same condition regarding respiratory and non-espiratory This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: www.jemerg.com 95 Emergency 2016; 4 (2): 92-96 Table 1: Comparison of the 2 studied groups regarding procedure characteristics and observed complications Variable Fentanyl + Midazolam Remifentanil P value Mean procedure time (minute) 4.6 ± 1.8 2.5 ± 1.6 < 0.001 Pain severity during procedure# 36.8 ± 22.9 22.9 ± 9.9 < 0.001 Mean pain reduction 33.5 ± 19.6 53.7 ± 13.3 < 0.001 Failure rate 15 (31.3) 1 (2.1) < 0.001 Non-respiratory adverse events Vomiting 2 (4.2) 0 (0) 0.247 Nausea 5 (10.4) 1 (2.1) 0.102 Itching 2 (4.2) 5 (10.4) 0.218 Cough 2 (4.2) 1 (2.1) 0.5 Agitation 1 (1.2) 0 (0) 0.5 Dysphoria 4 (8.3) 2 (4.2) 0.339 Total 12 (25) 8 (16.7) 0.122 Patient satisfaction Excellent 32 (66.7) 43 (89.6) < 0.005 Good 16 (33.3) 5 (10.4) Values are presented in mean ± standard deviation or number (%), pain severity was measured based on visual analogue scale (mil- limeter), failure rate: failure in pain reduction ≥ 30 mm. adverse events. 6. Appendix 6.1. Acknowledgements The authors appreciate the insightful cooperation of Emer- gency Department staff. 6.2. Author contribution All authors passed four criteria for authorship contribution based on recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. 6.3. Funding None. 6.4. Conflict of interest None. References 1. Cordell WH, Keene KK, Giles BK, Jones JB, Jones JH, Brizendine EJ. The high prevalence of pain in emer- gency medical care. The American journal of emergency medicine. 2002;20(3):165–9. 2. Godwin SA, Caro DA, Wolf SJ, et al. Clinical policy: pro- cedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency depart- ment. Annals of emergency medicine. 2005;45(2):177–96. 3. Marx J, Walls R, Hockberger R. Rosen’s Emergency Medicine-Concepts and Clinical Practice: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013. p. 4. Chalidis B, Sachinis N, Dimitriou C, Papadopoulos P, Samoladas E, Pournaras J. Has the management of shoul- der dislocation changed over time? International or- thopaedics. 2007;31(3):385–9. 5. Fitch RW, Kuhn JE. Intraarticular lidocaine versus in- travenous procedural sedation with narcotics and ben- zodiazepines for reduction of the dislocated shoulder: a systematic review. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2008;15(8):703–8. 6. Mace SE, Barata IA, Cravero JP, et al. Clinical pol- icy: evidence-based approach to pharmacologic agents used in pediatric sedation and analgesia in the emer- gency department. Annals of emergency medicine. 2004;44(4):342–77. 7. Panzer O, Moitra V, Sladen RN. Pharmacology of sedative-analgesic agents: dexmedetomidine, remifen- tanil, ketamine, volatile anesthetics, and the role of peripheral mu antagonists. Anesthesiology clinics. 2011;29(4):587–605. 8. Scott L, Perry M. Remifentanil: A review of its use dur- ing the induction and maintenance of general anaesthe- sia (vol 65, pg 1793, 2005). DRUGS. 2005;65(16):2286. 9. Glass PS, Gan TJ, Howell S. A review of the pharmacoki- netics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil. Anesthe- sia & Analgesia. 1999;89(4S):7. 10. Dunn M, Mitchell R, Souza C, Drummond G. Evaluation of propofol and remifentanil for intravenous sedation for reducing shoulder dislocations in the emergency depart- ment. Emergency medicine journal. 2006;23(1):57–8. 11. Dunn MJ, Mitchell R, DeSouza CI, Drummond GB, Waite A. Recovery from sedation with remifentanil and propo- This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: www.jemerg.com Gharavifard et al. 96 fol, compared with morphine and midazolam, for re- duction in anterior shoulder dislocation. Emergency Medicine Journal. 2011;28(1):6–10. 12. Swann A, Williams J, Fatovich DM. Recall after procedu- ral sedation in the emergency department. Emergency Medicine Journal. 2007;24(5):322–4. 13. Cok OY, Ertan A, Bahadir M. Remifentanil versus fentanyl in combination with midazolam for retrobulbar block in cataract surgery. Saudi medical journal. 2008;29(4):544– 8. 14. Litman RS. Conscious sedation with remifentanil and midazolam during brief painful procedures in chil- dren. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine. 1999;153(10):1085–8. 15. Rai M, Parry T, Dombrovskis A, Warner O. Remifentanil target-controlled infusion vs propofol target-controlled infusion for conscious sedation for awake fibreoptic in- tubation: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial. British journal of anaesthesia. 2008;100(1):125–30. 16. Phillips WJ, Halpin J, Jones J, McKenzie K. Remifentanil for procedural sedation in the emergency department. Annals of emergency medicine. 2009;53(1):163. 17. Sacchetti A, Jachowski J, Heisler J, Cortese T. Remifen- tanil use in emergency department patients: initial expe- rience. Emergency Medicine Journal. 2012;29(11):928–9. 18. Mamula P, Markowitz JE, Neiswender K, et al. Safety of intravenous midazolam and fentanyl for pediatric GI en- doscopy: prospective study of 1578 endoscopies. Gas- trointestinal endoscopy. 2007;65(2):203–10. This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: www.jemerg.com Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Appendix References