Journal of Anesthesia

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 182–186 | Cite as

EC50 of remifentanil to prevent withdrawal movement associated with injection of rocuronium

  • Ji Young Yoon
  • Hae Kyu Kim
  • Jae Young Kwon
  • Sang Wook Shin
  • Kyung Hoon Kim
  • Won Sung Kim
  • Tae Kyun Kim
Original Article



Various strategies have been studied to reduce the discomfort of rocuronium injection. This study was designed to determine the effect-site target concentration (Ce) of remifentanil at which there was a 50% probability of preventing movement from pain in response to the injection of rocuronium (EC50).


Anesthesia was induced with a propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI, Marsh model) and remifentanil TCI (Minto model). Effect-site target concentration of propofol was 3 μg/ml. Ce of remifentanil for the first patient started at 2.0 ng/ml. Ce of remifentanil for each subsequent patient was determined by the response of the previous patient by the Dixon up-and-down method with an interval of 0.5 ng/ml. After both drugs reached target concentration, rocuronium 0.8 mg/kg was administered, and the pain response was observed.


The EC50 of remifentanil was 1.5 ± 0.45 ng/ml by Dixon’s up-and-down method. From probit analysis, the EC50 of remifentanil was 1.37 ng/ml (95% confidence limits, 0.69–2.15 ng/ml), and the EC95 was 3.19 ng/ml (95% confidence limits, 2.31–11.24 ng/ml).


The EC50 of remifentanil to blunt the withdrawal responses to rocuronium injection was 1.37–1.5 ng/ml during 3 μg/ml propofol TCI anesthesia.


EC50 Remifentanil Rocuronium Up-and-down method 



This work was supported by a clinical research grant from Pusan National University Hospital in 2008.


  1. 1.
    Borgeat A, Kwiatkowski D. Spontaneous movements associated with rocuronium: is pain on injection the cause? Br J Anaesth. 1997;79:382–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shevchenko Y, Jocson JC, McRae VA, Stayer SA, Schwartz RE, Rehman M, et al. The use of lidocaine for preventing the withdrawal associated with the injection of rocuronium in children and adolescents. Anesth Analg. 1999;88:746–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahmad N, Choy CY, Aris EA, Balan S. Preventing the withdrawal response associated with rocuronium injection: a comparison of fentanyl with lidocaine. Anesth Analg. 2005;100:987–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Turan A, Memis D, Karamanlioglu B, Sut N, Pamukcu Z. The prevention of pain from injection of rocuronium by magnesium sulphate, lignocaine, sodium bicarbonate and alfentanil. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2003;31:277–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Memis D, Turan A, Karamanlioglu B, Sut N, Pamukcu Z. The prevention of pain from injection of rocuronium by ondansetron, lidocaine, tramadol, and fentanyl. Anesth Analg. 2002;94:1517–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choi BI, Choi SH, Shin YS, Lee SJ, Yoon KB, Shin SK, et al. Remifentanil prevents withdrawal movements caused by intravenous injection of rocuronium. Yonsei Med J. 2008;49:211–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim JY, Kim JY, Kim YB, Kwak HJ. Pretreatment with remifentanil to prevent withdrawal after rocuronium in children. Br J Anaesth. 2007;98:120–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Egan TD, Minto CF, Hermann DJ, Barr J, Muir KT, Shafer SL. Remifentanil versus alfentanil: comparative pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in healthy adult male volunteers. Anesthesiology. 1996;84:821–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dixon WJ. Staircase bioassay: the up-and-down method. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1991;15:47–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dixon WJ. Efficient analysis of experimental observations. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 1980;20:441–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Minto CF, Schnider TW, Egan TD, Youngs E, Lemmens HJ, Gambus PL, et al. Influence of age and gender on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil. I. Model development. Anesthesiology. 1997;86:10–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tuncali B, Karci A, Tuncali BE, Mavioglu O, Olguner CG, Ayhan S, et al. Dilution of rocuronium to 0.5 mg/mL with 0.9% NaCl eliminates the pain during intravenous injection in awake patients. Anesth Analg. 2004;99:740–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blunk JA, Seifert F, Schmelz M, Reeh PW, Koppert W. Injection pain of rocuronium and vecuronium is evoked by direct activation of nociceptive nerve endings. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2003;20:245–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roehm KD, Piper SN, Maleck WH, Boldt J. Prevention of propofol-induced injection pain by remifentanil: a placebo-controlled comparison with lidocaine. Anaesthesia. 2003;58:165–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim JY, Kwak HJ, Kim JY, Park KS, Song JS. Prevention of rocuronium-induced withdrawal movement in children: a comparison of remifentanil with alfentanil. Paediatr Anaesth. 2008;18:245–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shafer SL, Gregg KM. Algorithms to rapidly achieve and maintain stable drug concentrations at the site of drug effect with a computer-controlled infusion pump. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1992;20:147–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schnider TW, Minto CF, Gambus PL, Andresen C, Goodale DB, Shafer SL, et al. The influence of method of administration and covariates on the pharmacokinetics of propofol in adult volunteers. Anesthesiology. 1998;88:1170–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taylor IN, Kenny GN. Requirements for target-controlled infusion of propofol to insert the laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia. 1998;53:222–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Drover DR, Litalien C, Wellis V, Shafer SL, Hammer GB. Determination of the pharmacodynamic interaction of propofol and remifentanil during esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children. Anesthesiology. 2004;100:1382–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang LP, McLoughlin P, Paech MJ, Kurowski I, Brandon EL. Low and moderate remifentanil infusion rates do not alter target-controlled infusion propofol concentrations necessary to maintain anesthesia as assessed by bispectral index monitoring. Anesth Analg. 2007;104:325–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ji Young Yoon
    • 1
  • Hae Kyu Kim
    • 1
  • Jae Young Kwon
    • 1
  • Sang Wook Shin
    • 1
  • Kyung Hoon Kim
    • 1
  • Won Sung Kim
    • 1
  • Tae Kyun Kim
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, School of MedicinePusan National UniversityBusanKorea

Personalised recommendations