Rocuronium duration of action under sevoflurane, desflurane or propofol anaesthesia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We conducted a prospective randomized study to evaluate whether the duration of action of a single bolus dose of rocuronium is influenced by maintenance of anaesthesia with sevoflurane, desflurane or propofol infusion. METHODS: Fifty-seven ASA I-II patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery were enrolled in this study. Anaesthesia was induced with thiopental 3-5 mg kg(-1) or propofol 2.5 mg kg(-1) and fentanyl 5 microg kg(-1) and tracheal intubation was facilitated with rocuronium 0.9 mg kg(-1). Thereafter patients were randomly allocated to three different groups to receive sevoflurane, desflurane or propofol for maintenance of anaesthesia. Recovery of neuromuscular function was monitored by single twitch stimulation of the ulnar nerve and by recording the adductor pollicis response using accelerometry. Intergroup recovery times to 5% of control value of single twitch were analysed using analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: The mean (95% confidence interval) recovery time to 5% of control value of single twitch during desflurane anaesthesia was 90.18 (86.11-94.25) min. Significantly shorter recovery times were observed during sevoflurane or propofol anaesthesia, 58.86 (54.73-62.99) min and 51.11 (45.47-56.74) min, respectively (P < 0.001). There were also significant differences in the recovery time between groups receiving desflurane vs. sevoflurane (P < 0.001) and desflurane vs. propofol (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Desflurane anaesthesia significantly prolongs the duration of action of rocuronium at 0.9 mg kg(-1) single bolus dose, compared to sevoflurane or propofol anaesthesia maintenance regimens.     

Pulmonary mechanics during isoflurane,sevoflurane and desflurane anaesthesia

This study was designed to investigate the effects of desflurane on bronchial smooth muscle tone, following intubation and to compare these effects with isoflurane and sevoflurane. Patients were randomly divided into three groups to receive, isoflurane (n = 22), sevoflurane (n = 23), or desflurane (n = 22). Peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), respiratory resistance (Rr) and dynamic compliance (Cdyn) measurements were recorded at three time points; After the beginning of ventilation and before inhalation agent was started, following 5 min of ventilation with 1 MAC (minimum alveolar concentration) inhalation agent and following 5 min of 2 MAC inhalation agent. We found that all inhalation agents caused a significant decrease in Peak Inspiratory Pressure (PIP) and respiratory resistance (Rr), and an increase in dynamic compliance (Cdyn) at 1 MAC concentrations. When the agent concentration was increased to 2 MAC, desflurane caused a significant increase in Rr and PIP and a decrease in Cdyn. We concluded that desflurane, like isoflurane and sevoflurane, exhibits a bronchodilator effect at 1 MAC concentration. However, increasing the concentration to 2 MAC caused an increase in airway resistance with desflurane, whilst sevoflurane and isoflurane continued to have a bronchodilator effect.     

Neuromuscular blocking effects of rocuronium during desflurane, isoflurane, and sevoflurane anaesthesia

Purpose

To determine the magnitude of the potentiation of rocuronium by desflurane, isoflurane and sevoflurane 1.5 MAC anaesthesia.

Methods

In a prospective, randomised, study in 80 patients, the cumulative dose-effect curves for rocuronium were determined during anaesthesia with desflurane, sevoflurane and isoflurane (with N₂O 70%, 15 min steady state) or total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) using propofol/fentanyl. Neuromuscular block was assessed by acceleromyography (TOF-Guard®) after train-of-four (TOF) stimulation of the ulnar nerve (2Hz every 12sec, 200 μsec duration), Rocuronium was administered in increments of 100 μg·kg^?1 until first twitch (T₁) depression > 95%.

Results

Rocuronium led to more pronounced T₁ depression with desflurane or sevoflurane anaesthesia than with TIVA. The ED₅₀ and ED₉₅ were lower during desflurane (95 ± 25 and 190 ± 80 μg·kg^?1) and sevoflurane (120 ±30 and 210 ± 40 μg·kg^?1) than with TIVA (150 ± 40 and 310 ± 90 μg·kg^?1) (P < .01), while the difference was not significant for isoflurane (130 ± 40 and 250 ± 90 μg·kg^?1). Following equi-effective dosing (T₁ > 95%) the duration to 25% T₁ recovery, recovery index (25/75), and TOF_0.70 was: 13.2 ± 1.8, 12.7 ± 3.4, and 26.9 ± 5.7 min during anaesthesia with desflurane; 15.5 ± 5.0, 11.4 ± 3.8, and 31.0 ± 6.0 min with sevoflurane; 13.9 ± 4.7, 10.7 ± 3.3, and 26.3 ± 8.9 min with isoflurane; and 13.9 ± 3.9, 11.3 ± 5.7, and 27.5 ± 8,2 min with TIVA anaesthesia (P: NS).

Conclusion

Interaction of rocuronium and volatile anaesthetics resulted in augmentation of the intensity of neuromuscular block but did not result in significant effects on duration of or recovery from the block.     

Spontaneous recovery profile of rapacuronium during desflurane, sevoflurane, or propofol anesthesia for outpatient laparoscopy

We evaluated the spontaneous recovery characteristics of rapacuronium during desflurane-, sevoflurane-, or propofol-based anesthesia in 51 consenting women undergoing laparoscopic tubal ligation procedures. After the induction of the anesthesia with standardized doses of propofol and fentanyl, 1.5 mg/kg IV rapacuronium was administered to facilitate tracheal intubation. Patients were randomized to receive either 1 minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration of desflurane, 1 minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane, or 100 microg. kg(-1). min(-1) propofol infusion in combination with 66% nitrous oxide in oxygen for maintenance of anesthesia. Neuromuscular blockade was monitored at the wrist by using electromyography. The degree of maximum blockade and the times for first twitch recovery (T(1)) to 5%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 90%, as well as the recovery index, were similar in all three anesthetic groups. However, recovery times for the train-of-four ratio to achieve 0.7 and 0.8 were significantly longer with desflurane (44.4 +/- 18.9 and 53.5 +/- 22.4 min) and sevoflurane (44.8 +/- 15.1 and 53.2 +/- 15.8 min) compared with propofol (31.8 +/- 5.3 and 36.5 +/- 6.5 min). Eight patients (16%) required a maintenance dose of 0.5 mg/kg rapacuronium and reversal of rapacuronium residual block occurred in three (6%) patients. We conclude that spontaneous recovery after an intubating dose of 1.5 mg/kg rapacuronium was significantly prolonged by both desflurane and sevoflurane compared with propofol-based anesthesia. Routine monitoring of neuromuscular activity is recommended even when a single bolus dose of rapacuronium is administered during ambulatory anesthesia. IMPLICATIONS: When administered for laparoscopic surgery, the duration of action of an intubating dose of rapacuronium was prolonged 40%-50% by desflurane and sevoflurane, respectively, (versus propofol). Monitoring recovery of neuromuscular blockade produced by rapacuronium is particularly important when desflurane or sevoflurane is administered to ensure that an adequate recovery (train-of-four > or = 0.8) is achieved by the end of anesthesia.     

One-week recovery profiles after spinal, propofol, isoflurane and desflurane anaesthesia in ambulatory knee arthroscopy

There are comprehensive findings on the immediate recovery of patients from different types of anaesthesia, but more information is needed on how patients manage at home after ambulatory surgery. One hundred and seventy-three elective knee arthroscopy patients were randomised into four different anaesthesia groups to receive either spinal anaesthesia (SA) with 5% lidocaine or general anaesthesia (GA) with propofol infusion, isoflurane inhalation or desflurane inhalation. The patients were interviewed over the phone on the next day and asked to complete a questionnaire after 1 week. One hundred and sixty-eight patients (97%) were reached by phone. The questionnaire was returned by 163 patients (94%). After 24 h, all the patients were satisfied with the type of anaesthesia they had received, but 2% of the SA patients would have chosen GA and 4.3% of the GA patients would have chosen SA for the next operation. Based on the questionnaires returned after 1 week, 8.3% of the SA patients would have wanted to have GA, and 4.7% of the GA patients would have wanted to have SA in the future. The incidence of nausea (4.2%) and vomiting (1.8%) was very low in the whole series, with no differences between the anaesthesia groups. Headache after 24 h was experienced by 15.7% of the SA and 10.3% of the GA patients. After 1 week, SA patients reported headache upon standing in 13.5% of the cases, backache in 36.5% and lower leg pain in 59.6%. The corresponding figures for GA patients were 4.5, 9.9 and 39.6% (P<0.05). In spite of the good immediate recovery profile in the all anaesthesia groups, the fact that SA patients reported a higher incidence of headache, backache and lower leg pain after 1 week may be signs of post spinal headache and transient neurologic symptoms (TNS). For overall patient comfort, GA might be a better anaesthetic choice in ambulatory surgery.     

Recovery after anaesthesia for pulmonary surgery: desflurane, sevoflurane and isoflurane

We have studied maintenance and recovery profiles after general anaesthesia with sevoflurane, desflurane and isoflurane in 100 patients undergoing pulmonary surgery. End-tidal concentrations of anaesthetic required to maintain mean arterial pressure and heart rate within 20% of baseline values were 1.4 +/- 0.6% for sevoflurane, 3.4 +/- 0.9% for desflurane and 0.7 +/- 0.3% for isoflurane. The three anaesthetics had comparable haemodynamic effects and arterial oxygenation during one- lung ventilation. Emergence was twice as fast with desflurane than with sevoflurane or isoflurane (mean times to extubation: 8.9 (SD 5.0) min, 18.0 (17.0) min and 16.2 (11.0) min for desflurane, sevoflurane and isoflurane, respectively). Early recovery (Aldrete score, cognitive and psychomotor functions) was also more rapid after desflurane. In pulmonary surgery, desflurane, but not sevoflurane, allowed more rapid emergence and earlier recovery than isoflurane.      

Psychomotor recovery following propofol or isoflurane anaesthesia for day-care surgery

A newly developed test for the assessment of psychomotor recovery--the perceptive accuracy test (PAT)--is described. Seventy-four subjects who performed the test though that it was easy to perform and some were motivated to try it on a number of occasions. Eight persons performed the test on different days and at different periods of time; the results were consistent and reproducible. Eight more persons were then asked to do the test 4 times at 15-min intervals; no 'learning' was seen with this test. A randomized, prospective study was then performed in two groups of 15 patients, undergoing arthroscopic procedures of the knee. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with an infusion of propofol 12 mg/kg/h for the first 15 min, followed by 8 mg/kg/h subsequently in the propofol group. In the isoflurane group, anaesthesia was also induced with propofol, but isoflurane (0.5-2%) was used to maintain anaesthesia. Alfentanil was the analgesic used in both groups of patients. Results were compared with a third group of unanaesthetised controls, who were asked to perform psychomotor tests including choice reaction time and PAT at 30-min intervals for 2.5 h. There was a significant difference (P less than 0.01) in psychomotor recovery on the PAT-200 between the propofol group and control groups, but not in the isoflurane and control groups at 30 min. Both groups had returned to baseline values at 60 min in the PAT-60 and PAT-200. The choice reaction time showed no significant difference in either group 30 min after the anaesthetic.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Observational study of anaesthetists' fresh gas flow rates during anaesthesia with desflurane, isoflurane and sevoflurane

Reducing excessive fresh gas flow rates (FGF) is an established and simple strategy to reduce the administration of volatile anaesthetic agents. We studied clinicians' FGF use to understand better why two previous clinical trials achieved significant reductions in FGF by using feedback to anaesthetists. Anaesthesia information management system data from a US academic medical centre were analysed retrospectively. One year of data starting from July 2008 had 11,170 cases. Fresh gas flow rates were measured each minute during cases. Anaesthetists were more likely to choose FGF of multiples of 1 l/minute and 0.5 l/minute than random. However the pattern was too inconsistent to be of economic or psychological importance and thus is not needed when describing a target FGF. Cumulative distributions of FGF were shifted to the left for desflurane and isoflurane compared to sevoflurane (i.e. cost comparisons among agents may need to use different target FGF). Variation in mean FGF among anaesthetists was small. Even if all anaesthetists had identical mean FGF, the standard deviation of FGF among cases would be reduced by less than 0.1 l/minute for all agents. Most of the achievable reductions in FGF were small reductions in FGF for the many cases with < 3 l/minute. These results show that departments choosing to use inexpensive automatic email feedback on FGF should target all anaesthetists and focus on variation in FGF among anaesthetists' cases.     

Home readiness after day-case knee arthroscopy: spinal, desflurane, isoflurane or propofol anaesthesia?

In this study, four accepted methods of anaesthesia were compared during out-patient knee arthroscopy (KA). Immediate (<2 h) postoperative recovery was evaluated in terms of pain, sedation, nausea and time for home readiness. 173 patients undergoing elective KA were randomised to receive either spinal, propofol infusion, isoflurane or desflurane inhalation anaesthesia. Postoperative pain, sedation and nausea were recorded at 30, 60, 90 and 120 min after arrival in the recovery unit (RU). Discharge readiness was defined as fulfilment of the following criteria in all groups: alert, stable vital signs, able to ambulate, able to take oral fluids, no nausea and pain controllable by oral medication. Postoperative pain, in general, was low in all groups. The spinal patients had significantly lower VAS scores (p<0.001) than the general anaesthesia patients at 30, 60 and 90 min after arrival in RU. At 120 min the pain level was equal in all groups. No remarkable differences between the general anaesthesia groups were noted in terms of pain and nausea. The overall incidence of nausea was 3.4%. Propofol and isoflurane patients were more sedated at 30 min postoperatively than spinal and desflurane patients. At 60 min postoperatively all groups were alert. The time required for home readiness was significantly shorter in all the general anaesthesia groups (propofol 55 min, isoflurane 56 min and desflurane 46 min) than in the spinal anaesthesia group (168 min) (p<0.001). General anaesthesia is a practical alternative in elective knee arthroscopy. The immediate recovery profile is smooth with low levels of pain and nausea and home readiness is achieved significantly sooner than after spinal anaesthesia.     

Comparison of recovery profile after ambulatory anesthesia with propofol, isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane: a systematic review

In this systematic review we focused on postoperative recovery and complications using four different anesthetic techniques. The database MEDLINE was searched via PubMed (1966 to June 2002) using the search words "anesthesia" and with ambulatory surgical procedures limited to randomized controlled trials in adults (>19 yr), in the English language, and in humans. A second search strategy was used combining two of the words "propofol," "isoflurane," "sevoflurane," or "desflurane". Screening and data extraction produced 58 articles that were included in the final meta-analysis. No differences were found between propofol and isoflurane in early recovery. However, early recovery was faster with desflurane compared with propofol and isoflurane and with sevoflurane compared with isoflurane. A minor difference was found in home readiness between sevoflurane and isoflurane (5 min) but not among the other anesthetics. Nausea, vomiting, headache, and postdischarge nausea and vomiting incidence were in favor of propofol compared with isoflurane (P < 0.05). A larger number of patients in the inhaled anesthesia groups required antiemetics compared with the propofol group. We conclude that the differences in early recovery times among the different anesthetics were small and in favor of the inhaled anesthetics. The incidence of side effects, specifically postoperative nausea and vomiting, was less frequent with propofol. IMPLICATIONS: A systematic analysis of the literature comparing postoperative recovery after propofol, isoflurane, desflurane, and sevoflurane-based anesthesia in adults demonstrated that early recovery was faster in the desflurane and sevoflurane groups. The incidence of nausea and vomiting were less frequent with propofol.     

A review of recovery from sevoflurane anaesthesia: comparisons with isoflurane and propofol including meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Sevoflurane has a lower blood:gas partition coefficient than isoflurane and thus should be associated with a more rapid recovery from anaesthesia. METHODS: A review and meta-analysis were employed to examine the recovery profiles of adult patients following anaesthesia, comparing sevoflurane to isoflurane and sevoflurane to propofol. RESULTS: There were significant differences in times to several recovery events that favoured sevoflurane to isoflurane anaesthesia, including time to emergence, response to commands, extubation, and orientation. Likewise, there were significant differences in times to the same recovery events following anaesthesia with sevoflurane versus propofol. There were no differences in time to recovery room discharge when comparing sevoflurane to isoflurane or propofol. CONCLUSION: The observed differences between sevoflurane and isoflurane or propofol anaesthesia support the postulate that the use of sevoflurane is associated with a more rapid recovery from anaesthesia than either isoflurane or propofol.     

Rocuronium pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship under stable propofol or isoflurane anesthesia

PURPOSE: To compare the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and the concentration-effect relationship of rocuronium in patients under stable propofol or isoflurane anesthesia. METHODS: Ten patients were randomized to receive fentanyl, propofol and nitrous oxide (60%) or fentanyl, thiopental, isoflurane (1.2% end-tidal concentration) and nitrous oxide (60%). To obtain good intubation conditions and maintain adequate muscle relaxation during surgery, patients received two bolus doses of rocuronium: 0.5 mg x kg(-1) (1.7 x ED95) at induction followed one hour later by 0.3 mg x kg(-1) (1 x ED95). Arterial blood samples were obtained over six hours after the second bolus dose. Plasma concentrations of rocuronium were measured using high pressure liquid chromatography. Muscle twitch tension was monitored by mechanomyography for the two doses. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters were determined. RESULTS: No differences in rocuronium pharmacokinetic parameters were observed between both groups. After the second bolus, clinical duration was 20 +/- 6 min in the propofol group vs 39 +/- 8 min in the isoflurane group (P <0.05). The effect compartment concentration corresponding to 50% block, EC50, was higher under propofol anesthesia: 1008 vs 592 microg x L(-1) (P <0.05). CONCLUSION: Rocuronium body disposition is similar under stable propofol or isoflurane anesthesia. In contrast to isoflurane, propofol does not prolong the neuromuscular block. Therefore, the potentiating effect of isoflurane is of pharmacodynamic origin only, as explained by an increased sensitivity at the neuromuscular junction. In contrast with isoflurane anesthesia where the dose of rocuronium has to be decreased under stable conditions, no dose adjustment is required under propofol anesthesia.     

Waste gas exposure during desflurane and isoflurane anaesthesia

Background : Currently, there are no data available concerning the occupational exposure to desflurane during general anaesthesia. This prospective, randomized study reports on occupational exposure to desflurane, compared to isoflurane, in a modern operation theatre (OT).
Methods : The study was performed in an OT equipped with a modern air-conditioning system and with a low-leakage anaesthesia machine connected to a central scavenging system. Trace concentrations of the anaesthetics were measured continuously by means of a photoacoustic infrared spectrometer during general anaesthesia in 30 patients undergoing eye surgery. Values were obtained within the breathing zone of the anaesthetist, the surgeon, the auxiliary nurse and at the mouth of the patient.
Results : Desflurane and isoflurane were administered with median (range) endtidal concentrations of 4.7 (3.8–10.3) vol% and 0.9 (0.6–1.4) vol%, respectively. The personnel-related median values of the average trace concentrations of desflurane and isoflurane were 0.5 (0.01–7.5) ppm and 0.2 (0.01–1.6) ppm, respectively.
Conclusions : Occupational exposure to desflurane is low in the environment of a modern OT, even though it has to be administered in approximately 5-fold higher concentrations compared to isoflurane.     

Emergence and recovery in children after desflurane and isoflurane anaesthesia

Editor—I wish to comment on the interesting study by Nordmannand colleagues¹ in which isoflurane and desflurane anaesthesiawere compared with respect to various indices of the speed ofemergence, and in particular the ‘exposure-time’sensitivity of these indices. Pharmacokinetic and mathematicalmodels predict that emergence following desflurane would bequicker than that following isoflurane and this study usefullyprovides experimental confirmation of the hypotheses underlyingthese models. The authors state that younger children are less susceptibleto delayed emergence following prolonged isoflurane exposureas compared with older/larger children. The evidence for thisis not clear. Their Figures 4 and 5 show a regression plot of‘time to extubation’ vs     

Augmentation of the neuromuscular blocking effects of cisatracurium during desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane or total i.v. anaesthesia

We have evaluated the enhancement of cisatracurium-induced neuromuscular block by potent inhalation anaesthetic agents, by constructing dose-effect curves for cisatracurium in 84 patients during anaesthesia with 1.5 MAC (70% nitrous oxide) desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane or total i.v. anaesthesia (TIVA). Acceleromyography (TOF- Guard) and train-of-four (TOF) stimulation of the ulnar nerve were used (2 Hz every 12 s). Cisatracurium was administered in increments of 15 micrograms kg-1 until depression of T1/T0 > 95% was reached. ANOVA was used for statistical analysis (alpha = 0.05, beta = 0.2). Depression of T1/T0 during potent inhalation anaesthesia was enhanced compared with TIVA. ED50 and ED95 values of cisatracurium were 15 (SD 5) and 34 (10) micrograms kg-1 for desflurane; 15 (4) and 32 (7) micrograms kg-1 for sevoflurane; and 15 (5) and 33 (9) micrograms kg-1 for isoflurane. These were significantly lower than the values for TIVA (21 (4) and 51 (13) micrograms kg-1) (P < 0.01 in each case). After equi-effective dosing, times to T1/T0 = 25% were similar in all groups (19 (7), 19 (5), 20 (5) vs 16 (4) min). Recovery index25-75% and time to a TOF ration of 0.70 were prolonged significantly by desflurane and sevoflurane compared with TIVA (18 (5), 19 (8) vs 12 (4) min and 43 (11), 44 (10) vs 35 (5) min, respectively), whereas the difference was not significant for isoflurane (14 (6) and 41 (7) min).      

Anaesthesia, recovery and postoperative nausea and vomiting after breast surgery. A comparison between desflurane, sevoflurane and isoflurane anaesthesia

BACKGROUND: Whereas induction and recovery will occur more rapidly with the new low soluble anaesthetics than with isoflurane, the quality of anaesthesia and recovery with special emphasis on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is not well known. METHODS: In an open (peroperatively), double-blinded (postoperatively), randomised controlled study, we assessed anaesthesia characteristics, recovery and 24 h PONV after breast surgery comparing isoflurane, desflurane and sevoflurane. RESULTS: There were no significant quality differences between the three agents during anaesthesia and recovery except for the incidence of PONV in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU). The PONV rate (24 h in PACU and ward) was higher in the desflurane group (67%) than in the isoflurane group (22%), (P<0.01). The corresponding PONV rate for sevoflurane was 36%. CONCLUSION: The quality of anaesthesia, time to opening of eyes and influence on respiration was similar with all three anaesthetics. As the emergence from anaesthesia did not differ significantly between the three agents, the choice of agent could be based on PONV rate and price. Desflurane had a significantly higher 24 h PONV rate than isoflurane. Early PACU PONV rate was significantly (P<0.05) lower for the more soluble isoflurane (4%) than for the low soluble gases, desflurane and sevoflurane together (28%). The result of this study does not give a rationale for a transition to the new low soluble agents in breast cancer surgery.     

Immediate anesthesia recovery and psychomotor function of patient after prolonged anesthesia with desflurane, sevoflurane or isoflurane

OBJECTIVE: To compare the anesthetic maintenance and early postoperative recovery and psychomotor function in patients who have been anesthestized with desflurane, sevoflurane or isoflurane during prolonged open urological surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-five patients were randomly assigned to receive desflurane, sevoflurane or isoflurane with N2O 60% for anesthetic maintenance. The concentration of each drug was adjusted to maintain arterial pressure and heart rate +/- 20% of baseline. After the operation the anesthetics were discontinued and times until eye opening, spontaneous breathing, extubation and orientation were recorded. In the post-anesthesia recovery ward we applied the Newman-Trieger and Aldrete tests and recorded instances of nausea and vomiting and need for analgesia during the first 24 hours after surgery. RESULTS: The groups were similar with regard to demographic features, anesthetic maintenance, duration of anesthesia and relative doses of the anesthetics used. Recovery times in the operating room were significantly shorter (p < 0.05) after anesthesia with desflurane and sevoflurane than with isoflurane, with no significant differences between the desflurane and sevoflurane groups (duration of anesthesia 198 +/- 90, 171 +/- 67 and 191 +/- 79; eye opening 7.6 +/- 3.7, 7.8 +/- 3.0 and 11.9 +/- 4.5; time until extubation 7.8 +/- 3.0, 8.3 +/- 3.0 and 11.0 +/- 3.5 for desflurane, sevoflurane and isoflurane, respectively; all data in minutes). Recovery in the post-anesthetic recovery ward was similar for all three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthetic maintenance was comparable with all three drugs. Desflurane and sevoflurane demonstrated advantages over isoflurane during recovery from anesthesia in the operating theater. No significant differences were found in psychomotor recovery, nausea and/or vomiting or requirements for postoperative analgesia.     

Oxidative stress status during exposure to propofol, sevoflurane and desflurane

We evaluated the circulating and lung oxidative status during general anesthesia established with propofol, sevoflurane, or desflurane in mechanically ventilated swine. Blood samples and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) specimens were respectively performed via an internal jugular vein catheter and a nonbronchoscopic BAL for baseline oxidative activity measurements: malondialdehyde (MDA), superoxide dismutase (SOD), and glutathione peroxidase (GPX). A 4-h general anesthesia was then performed in the three groups of 10 swine: the Propofol group received 8 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1) of IV propofol as the sole anesthetic; the Desflurane group received 1.0 minimum alveolar concentration of desflurane; and the Sevoflurane group received 1.0 minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane. We observed significantly larger levels of MDA in plasma and BAL during desflurane exposure than with the other anesthetics. We also observed smaller concentrations of circulating GPX and alveolar GPX. We found a significant decrease for MDA measurements in the plasma and the pulmonary lavage during propofol anesthesia. We also found larger values of GPX measurements in the serum and the pulmonary lavage. No significant changes were observed when animals were exposed to sevoflurane. No significant changes were found for circulating concentrations of SOD during exposure to all anesthetics. In this mechanically ventilated swine model, desflurane seemed to induce a local and systemic oxidative stress, whereas propofol and sevoflurane were more likely to have antioxidant properties. IMPLICATIONS: Superoxide is an unavoidable byproduct of oxygen metabolism that occurs in various inflammatory reactions. Inhalation of volatile anesthetics under mechanical ventilation induces an inflammatory response. We evaluated the bronchoalveolar and systemic oxidative stress in swine during exposure to propofol and newer volatile anesthetics. Desflurane induces more lipid peroxidation than do the other anesthetics.