Oral clonidine premedication reduces induction dose and prolongs awakening time from propofol-nitrous oxide anesthesia

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether oral clonidine premedication affects the induction dose of propofol and awakening time from epidural and propofol anesthesia. METHODS: Thirty-nine female patients (ASA I or II) were randomly allocated to receive 5 microg x kg(-1) clonidine p.o. or no clonidine 90 min before induction of anesthesia. After epidural anesthesia was achieved with lidocaine, general anesthesia was induced with continuous i.v. infusion of propofol at a rate of 50 mg x min(-1) until loss of eyelash reflex and responses to verbal commands, which were judged by a blinded observer. After a laryngeal mask airway was inserted, anesthesia was maintained with N2O 67%, O2 33% and propofol adjusted to maintain hemodynamic stability. After completion of surgery, a blinded observer recorded the time from discontinuance of propofol and N2O until the patient was awake and responsive (awakening time), and then, the laryngeal mask airway was removed. RESULTS: The induction dose of propofol in the clonidine group (1.4 +/- 0.3 mg) was less than that in the control group (1.9 +/- 0.4 mg, P < 0.05), while the awakening time of the clonidine group (470 +/- 145 sec) was longer than that of the control group (329 +/- 123 sec, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Premedication with 5 microg x kg(-1) clonidine p.o. reduced the induction dose of propofol, but delayed emergence from propofol anesthesia.     

Titrated propofol induction vs. continuous infusion in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging

Background: Propofol is the popular intravenous (i.v.) anaesthetic for paediatric sedation because of its rapid onset and recovery. We compared the efficacy and safety of a single dose and conventional infusion of propofol for sedation in children who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods: This was a double‐blind, randomized‐controlled study. One hundred and sixty children were assigned to group I (single dose) or II (infusion). Sedation was induced with i.v. propofol 2 mg/kg, and supplemental doses of propofol 0.5 mg/kg were administered until adequate sedation was achieved. After the induction of sedation, we treated patients with a continuous infusion of normal saline at a rate of 0.3 ml/kg/h in group I and the same volume of propofol in group II. In case of inadequate sedation, additional propofol 0.5 mg/kg was administered and the infusion rate was increased by 0.05 ml/kg/h. Induction time, sedation time, recovery time, additional sedation and adverse events were recorded. Results: Recovery time was significantly shorter in group I compared with group II [0 (0–3) vs. 1 (0–3), respectively, P<0.001]. Group I (single dose) had significantly more patients with recovery time 0 compared with group II (infusion) (65/80 vs. 36/80, respectively, P<0.001). Induction and sedation times were not significantly different between groups. There was no significant difference in the frequency of additional sedation and adverse events between groups. Conclusion: A single dose of propofol without a continuous infusion can provide appropriate sedation in children undergoing MRI for <30 min.     

The comparative effect of single dose mivacurium during sevoflurane or propofol anesthesia in children

BACKGROUND: We aimed to randomly compare intubating conditions, recovery characteristics and neuromuscular effects of single dose of mivacurium (0.2 mg.kg(-1)) during sevoflurane vs. propofol anesthesia in 60 healthy children, undergoing inguinal surgery. METHODS: All children were randomly allocated to receive 2 mg.kg(-1) propofol iv or sevoflurane 8% inspired concentration for induction of anesthesia. Anaesthesia was maintained with 66% nitrous oxide in oxygen and 100-120 microg.kg(-1) propofol or sevoflurane approximately 2-3% inspired concentration with controlled ventilation. The ulnar nerve was stimulated at the wrist by a train-of four (TOF) stimulus every 20 s and neuromuscular function was measured at the adductor pollicis. When the response to TOF was stable, 0.2 mg.kg(-1) mivacurium was given. The trachea was intubated successfully at the first attempt in all patients. RESULTS: Onset time following a single dose of mivacurium was shorter in the sevoflurane group (2.99 min), than in the propofol group (4.42 min). The times to 25, 50, 75, and 90% recovery were significantly longer in the sevoflurane group (13.1, 15.7, 18.6, and 21.2 min, respectively) than in the propofol group (11.4, 13.2, 14.4, and 17.2 min respectively). TOF ratios of 50, 70, and 90% were significantly occurred later in sevoflurane group than propofol group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that when compared with propofol group, the sevoflurane group had an accelerated onset and a delayed recovery of neuromuscular block induced by mivacurium in children.     

The differential cost of anesthesia and recovery with propofol-nitrous oxide anesthesia versus thiopental sodium-isoflurane-nitrous oxide anesthesia

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the recovery room profile of propofol in outpatient anesthesia and to compare it to the profile of a standard technique. DESIGN: A comparative, randomized, double-blind, third-party open study. SETTING: Ambulatory Surgery Center at The Emory Clinic. PATIENTS: Ninety-nine ASA physical status I, II, or III nonpregnant female patients who had been diagnosed as needing breast biopsies. INTERVENTIONS: All patients were given 1 microgram/kg of fentanyl prior to induction. Those in the propofol group were induced with 2.0 to 2.5 mg/kg of propofol and maintained with a 100 to 200 microgram/kg/min infusion of propofol with nitrous oxide (N2O) in oxygen (O2). In the thiopental sodium-isoflurane group, patients were induced with 4.0 to 5.0 mg/kg of thiopental sodium and maintained with isoflurane and N2O in O2. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Recovery from anesthesia was assessed by an evaluator who was unaware of the anesthetic technique used for each patient. Immediate recovery time was measured in terms of awakening, response to verbal command, and orientation to time and place. A brief postoperative follow-up questionnaire was completed to assess the patients' subjective feelings regarding their ability to eat, concentrate, and resume normal activities. In the thiopental sodium-isoflurane group, 15 of 50 patients (30%) had nausea and vomiting, but in the propofol group, only 4 of 49 patients (8.1%) had nausea and vomiting (p less than 0.01). The latter group resumed normal activity (i.e., reading and watching television) 7.93 +/- 0.76 hours postanesthesia, whereas the thiopental sodium-isoflurane group resumed normal activity 17.02 +/- 1.21 hours postanesthesia (p less than 0.001). Patients in the propofol group returned to work in an average of 1.5 +/- 0.09 days, compared with 2.0 +/- 0.09 days for the thiopental sodium-isoflurane group (p less than 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The propofol group needed less nursing care and returned to more productive activity earlier than did the thiopental sodium-isoflurane group.     

The effects of plasma fentanyl concentrations on propofol requirement, emergence from anesthesia, and postoperative analgesia in propofol-nitrous oxide anesthesia

To determine the effects of plasma fentanyl concentrations on intraoperative propofol requirements, emergence from anesthesia, and relief of postoperative pain, we studied 60 ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing spine fusion. The patients were randomly assigned to four study groups according to the expected intraoperative plasma fentanyl concentrations. Group I received an infusion of saline, and Groups II, III, and IV received fentanyl infusions to maintain the blood levels at 1.5, 3.0, and 4.5 ng/mL, respectively. An infusion rate of propofol was adjusted to keep the mean arterial pressure within 15% of the control value. Inspired nitrous oxide concentrations were maintained at 67%. The following were investigated in each group: 1) an average propofol infusion rate, 2) time to spontaneous eye opening and recovery of orientation (name, date, and place), and 3) total dose of fentanyl used for 24 h after admission to the postanesthetic care unit. Average propofol infusion rates were 10.1 +/- 2.5 (mean +/- SD), 7.5 +/- 1.2, 5.7 +/- 1.1, and 4.9 +/- 1.2 mg. kg(-1). h(-1), in Groups I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Groups receiving fentanyl infusion had significantly smaller infusion rates of propofol (P < 0.01) than the group receiving saline. Among the three fentanyl infusion groups, Group II (P < 0.01) had more than Groups III and IV. The time to spontaneous eye opening and the recovery of orientation were directly related to plasma fentanyl concentrations. The plasma fentanyl levels between Groups III and IV were the same. The total amount of IV patient-controlled analgesia fentanyl during postoperative 24 h increased significantly when the order of plasma fentanyl concentrations was reversed, 913.1 +/- 58.4, 553.4 +/- 129, 222.7 +/- 73.4, and 135.1 +/- 69.5 microg in Groups I, II, III, and IV, respectively. These results suggest that the addition of fentanyl infusions had ceiling effects that reduce the intraoperative propofol requirements according to the plasma fentanyl concentrations. The ceiling effect was demonstrated in the recovery of consciousness but not in the fentanyl requirements for postoperative analgesia. Implications: The addition of fentanyl, a potent opioid, reduced the intraoperative requirement of propofol, an IV anesthetic, in the order of the plasma fentanyl concentrations. The ceiling effects of fentanyl were demonstrated in the reduction of propofol requirements and recovery of consciousness but not in the fentanyl requirements for postoperative analgesia.     

Total intravenous anesthesia with remifentanil, propofol and cisatracurium in end-stage renal failure

PURPOSE: To compare recovery parameters of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with remifentanil and propofol, hemodynamic responses to perioperative events, and pharmacodynamic parameters of cisatracurium in 22 end-stage renal failure and 22 normal renal function patients. METHODS: Anesthesia was induced with 2-3 mg x kg(-1) propofol and 1 microg x kg(-1) remifentanil and maintained with 75 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) propofol and propofol initial infusion of 0.2 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) propofol. Arterial pressure and heart rate were maintained by remifentanil infusion rate adjustments. The first twitch (T1) was maintained at 25% by an infusion of cisatracurium. RESULTS: There was no difference in the time to maintenance of adequate respiration, date of birth recollection, first analgesic administration, between the renal failure (4.8+/-2.5, 7.8+/-3.2, 12.3+/-5.3 min respectively) and the control group (5.2+/-2.8, 8.1+/-3.1, 12.7+/-5.5 min): nor were there any differences in the time to 25% T1 recovery, T1 recovery from 25% to 75%, or cisatracurium infusion rate between the renal failure group (32.1 +/-10.8 min, 18.2+/-5.5 min, 0.89+/-0.29 microg x kg(-1) min(-1) respectively) and the control group (35.9 (7.9 min, 18.4+/-3.8 min, 0.95+/-0.22 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)). CONCLUSION: End-stage renal failure does not prolong recovery from TIVA with remifentanil and propofol, or the recovery from cisatracurium neuromuscular block.     

Recovery from total intravenous anesthesia with propofol and buprenorphine

A retrospective study was performed to evaluate recovery from total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and buprenorphine for various types of surgery. The patients of the study were divided into two groups; Group A: n = 85, age 66 +/- 12 Y, duration 282 +/- 102 min, with epidural block and Group B: n = 56, 52 +/- 20 Y, 172 +/- 90 min, without the block. All patients were premedicated with intramuscular midazolam (1-5 mg). Anesthesia was maintained with propofol infusion with 40% oxygen in air, and an intravenous bolus dose of buprenorphine (0.11 +/- 0.03 mg). Muscle relaxation was obtained by intravenous vecuronium. The patients of Group A were supplemented with continuous epidural anesthesia using 2% mepivacaine. The maintenance dose of propofol (Group A: 4.5 +/- 1.2 mg.kg-1.h-1, Group B: 7.0 +/- 1.8 mg.kg-1.h-1) and temperature at the end of surgery decreased significantly with age. Awakening time in all patients was 12.3 +/- 7.4 min and it was correlated significantly with age and hypothermia, but not correlated with the maintenance dose or duration of propofol infusion. In short-duration surgery (within 2 hours, n = 36) awakening time was correlated with neither age nor temperature. There was no difference in awakening time between genders. Requirement for analgesics within 20 hours was 18.8% in Group A and 14.3% in Group B. Four patients (2.8%) reported dreaming, but none of the patients recalled the intraoperative events. We suggest that in elderly patients the reduction of intravenous anesthetics, maintenance of normothermia and short-duration surgery would result in rapid recovery in TIVA.     

Induction and maintenance of anesthesia with propofol and with thiopental-isoflurane. Comparative study]

Thirty one patients of both sexes, ASA I-II, aged 18-65 years have undergone a randomized trial in order to compare two anesthetic techniques. Patients in group I (n = 15) received a 2.5 mg/kg induction dose of propofol followed by a continuous infusion of the same drug at 3.6-9 mg/kg/h. Patients in group II (n = 16) were induced with 4 mg/kg thiopentone and maintained with 0.5-1.5% isoflurane. Both groups were evaluated for time and quality of induction, collateral effects, quality and hemodynamic stability during maintenance and time and quality of recovery. Induction time for patients in group I (49.6 +/- 15 seg) was significantly longer than for group II patients (23 +/- 3 seg) (p less than 0.01). Respiratory depression (apnea period longer than 20 seconds) was also commoner and longer in group I (p less than 0.01) although no problems were observed with manual ventilation. One patient in group I required an extra dose for induction. Both groups had similar hemodynamic changes along the procedure. Awakening time for patients in group I (24.2 +/- 7.3 min) was significantly longer than for patients in group II (14.3 +/- 4.4 min) (p less than 0.001). Although surgery times were longer in group I, a possible cumulative effect of propofol for infusions over 90 min cannot be discarded.     

Recovery after anesthesia with propofol in otorhinolaryngologic surgery of brief duration

This study was designed to assess recovery from total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol for short ENT procedures. Twenty-six patients (ASA I and II) were assigned to two groups of thirteen: one breathed air (Laser laryngeal microsurgery), the second N2O-O2 (FIO2 : 0.5) (various ENT procedures). The induction sequence was exactly the same for both groups: oral premedication with 10 mg diazepam one hour before surgery, I mg pancuronium bromide, 2 micrograms X kg-1 fentanyl, denitrogenation within 3 min, after which propofol was delivered (2.5 mg X kg-1). When the eye-lash reflex had disappeared (time recorded), 1.5 mg X kg-1 suxamethonium was given and laryngotracheal intubation carried out. A continuous infusion of propofol (9 mg X kg-1 X h-1) was started. Surgery began 5 +/- 2 min after the start of propofol infusion. The durations of anaesthesia, surgery and propofol infusion were similar in both groups. To have good surgical conditions, it was necessary to give repeated doses of propofol for 15 patients. Thus, the total dose of propofol was significatively different between the two groups: 24.5 +/- 6.7 mg X kg-1 X h-1 in group "air" versus 16 +/- 3.6 mg X kg-1 X h-1 in group "N2O-O2" (p less than 0.001). Extubation occurred within 16 +/- 8 min in group "air", being more rapid in group "N2O-O2" (11 +/- 9 min; no significant difference). Recovery was assessed with two psychomotor tests: choice reaction time (CRT) and tracing test (TT).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Sedation in spinal anesthesia. Comparison of remifentanil and propofol]

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of remifentanil for analgesia and sedation during subarachnoidea anesthesia, and to compare remifentanil with propofol. METHOD: Ninety ASA I-III patients undergoing orthopedic or traumatologic surgery under subarachnoid anesthesia were enrolled for prospective study and randomly assigned to two treatment groups. The propofol group (n = 45) received a single dose of 0.5 mg/kg followed by infusion at 3 mg/kg/h. The remifentanil group (n = 45) received a single dose of 0.5 microgram/kg followed by infusion at 0.1 microgram/kg/min. We evaluated quality of sedation, pain intensity during nerve blockade, hemodynamic and respiratory parameters and time until recovery. RESULTS: The remifentanil group experienced less moderate-to-intense pain (13%) than did the propofol group (63%) (p < 0.01). Sedation was adequate in both groups and was easy to control by adjusting the rate of infusion. Times until recovery of consciousness and respiratory frequency after withdrawal of infusion until recovery of baseline levels were 7.87 +/- 3.54 min and 5.22 +/- 2.49 min, respectively, in the remifentanil group and 8.72 +/- 4.59 min and 5.36 +/- 2.49 min, respectively, in the propofol group, respectively. Patients in the remifentanil group experienced a significantly greater decrease in SpO2 than did those in the propofol group (20% and 4%, respectively; p < 0.05). Mean blood pressure was higher for patients treated with remifentanil. The incidence of vomiting was also higher in the remifentanil group than in the propofol group (9% vs 0%). CONCLUSION: Remifentanil is more effective in reducing pain related to nerve blockade and level of sedation is lower; however remifentanil is associated with a higher incidence of respiratory depression and vomiting.     

Comparative study of anesthesia and recovery with propofol and enflurane in cervical surgery

The recovery times and the state of postoperative awakening were studied after anaesthesia with propofol or enflurane. The forty patients who were to undergo surgery for cold thyroid nodules were divided into two homogeneous groups which were similar in age, sex, weight and length of surgery. In one group, induction was carried out with propofol, fentanyl, pancuronium bromide, and maintained with 9 mg X kg-1 X h-1 propofol. In the other group, this was done with thiopentone, fentanyl, pancuronium bromide, followed by 0.8% enflurane. Repeat injections of fentanyl were given as required. The time between stopping giving the anaesthetic drug and eye opening was measured, as well as the performance in memorizing and sorting numbers; these two tests were carried out before and 2 h after surgery. The overall results did not show any differences between the two groups in recovery time or quality of awakening. In the propofol group, recovery time and quality were better than in the enflurane group if the patient was less than 50 years old or surgery lasted less than 100 min. In the propofol group, there were significant correlations between recovery time and age (r = 0.83), and between recovery time and duration of surgery (r = 0.87). The doses of this new product should therefore be modified according to the age of the patient and the length of surgery.     

High concentration sevoflurane induction of anesthesia accelerates onset of vecuronium neuromuscular blockade

PURPOSE: To investigate neuromuscular block using accelography after administration of vecuronium under sevoflurane 8% induction and maintenance with sevoflurane 2% in adults. METHODS: Patients were allocated to three groups: (1) group I: anesthesia was induced and maintained with propofol and fentanyl (n= 15), (2) group II: anesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with N2O(66%)-O2-sevoflurane 2% (n = 15), (3) group III: anesthesia was induced with sevoflurane 8% using a vital capacity inhalation induction and maintained with N2O(66%)-O2-sevoflurane 2% (n = 15). 0.1 mg x kg(-1) vecuronium was used for paralysis three minutes after anesthetic induction and reversed using intravenous 0.04 mg x kg(-1) neostigmine with 0.02 mg kg atropine when the train-of-four (TOF) ratio returned to 25%. RESULTS: The onset time from initial administration of vecuronium to maximal block in the group III was shorter than that in the groups I and II (139 +/- 35, 193 +/- 35 and 188 +/- 47s, respectively: P < 0.05). The clinical duration from maximal block to 25% recovery of TOF ratio in group II and III was longer than that in the group I (47 +/- 15, 48 +/- 14 and 36 +/- 10 min, respectively: P < 0.05). The reversal times from administration of neostigmine to 75% of TOF ratio in groups II and III were longer than that in the group I (196 +/- 53, 208 +/- 64 and 136 +/- 28s, respectively: P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Vital capacity inhalation induction of anesthesia with sevoflurane accelerates onset and prolongs duration of vecuronium neuromuscular block compared with propofol-fentanyl anesthesia.     

The use of propofol during diskectomy in neurosurgery]

The intravenous anaesthetic agent propofol has become more and more popular not only for induction but also for the maintenance of anaesthesia in all fields of surgery. For this purpose, different infusion rates and also combinations of propofol with opioids, nitrous oxide and volatile anaesthetic agents have been described. The present study was designed to find the best dosage regimen for short operations and rapid changes. The necessity for the frequently recommended standardized combination of propofol with opioids should be checked with respect to the cardiovascular effects. METHODS. A series of 60 patients (ASA I and II, age range 22-79 years) selected for discectomy were prospectively randomized to three groups. Half an hour before operation all patient received 0.5 mg atropine, 50 mg promethazine and 50 mg pethidine as i.m. premedication. In all groups anaesthesia was induced with propofol in a bolus dose of 2.5 mg/kg body weight over a period of approximately 45 s. After 5 mg atracurium the patients were intubated under 100 mg succinylcholine and normoventilated with 70% nitrous oxide and 30% oxygen. For relaxation 25 mg of atracurium were given. In group I propofol was administered in a dosage of 15 mg/kg body weight per hour for 10 min after induction. After this time the propofol infusion was reduced to 6 mg/kg body weight per hour. Group II received 0.1 mg fentanyl before induction. The dosage of propofol was similar to group I. In group III 0.1 mg of fentanyl was administered before induction and propofol was given with an infusion rate of 6 mg/kg body weight from the beginning. The following parameters were controlled and documented: systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SAP and DAP), heart rate (HF), end-expiratory carbon dioxide (eeCO2), inspiratory oxygen concentration (FiO2) and peripheral oxygen saturation (sO2). Recovery time was determined as the time from the end of the propofol infusion until eye-opening on command. RESULTS. In all groups anaesthesia could be induced and maintained without complications. There was a slight increase in SAP in group I after intubation, while in the groups with fentanyl a pronounced decrease of SAP was found simultaneously with induction of anaesthesia (Fig. 1). In group I HF showed significantly higher values after intubation and for the next 15 min than in group II and group III. A rapid and pronounced increase of end-tidal carbon dioxide occurred in the fentanyl groups with the beginning of spontaneous ventilation at the end of anaesthesia. There was a significantly longer recovery time in group II with fentanyl and initial higher propofol infusion rate. A correlation between dosage of propofol and recovery time could not be found. DISCUSSION. The results of this study demonstrate that a routine combination of propofol with opioids is not necessary even for painful surgical procedures if the propofol dosage is initially increased. There are differences in cardiovascular reactions between group I without and groups II and III with fentanyl, but in our patients these changes were of no clinical importance. An additional administration of fentanyl can prevent hypertensive reactions or tachycardia with intubation, but on the other hand fentanyl can also increase the cardial depression of propofol with a dangerous decrease in blood pressure and heart rate. Therefore in combination with opioids lower doses of propofol should be used for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia. If opioids are administered, signs of a residual postoperative respiratory depression have to be taken seriously.     

Intravenous anesthesia with propofol in intracranial surgery]

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the repercussions of intravenous anesthesia with propofol as the single hypnotic drug on intracranial pressure (ICP) and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), and also to study the time until recovery from anesthesia and to tracheal extubation as well as intraoperative hemodynamic changes in patients undergoing surgery to remove a supratentorial brain tumor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-three ASA I/II patients scheduled for exeresis of a supratentorial brain tumor were studied. A fiberoptic sensor placed in direct contact with the dura mater was used to measure ICP. Anesthetic induction was achieved with propofol (2 mg/kg). Propofol (12 and 9 mg/kg/h for 10 min and 6 mg/kg/h throughout the rest of the operation) was used for maintenance. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), ICP and CPP were recorded at baseline and 1, 2, 3 and 4 min after induction, during laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation; 1, 3, 5, 10, 15 and 20 min after tracheal intubation (L + 1, L + 3, L + 5, L + 10, L + 15, L + 20), upon placement of a craniostat; upon skin incision; upon withdrawal of propofol perfusion; and during extubation. The following variables were recorded after awakening: time until eye opening after receiving a verbal command, time until extubation and time until orientation. Analysis of variance for repeated measures (ANOVA) was performed on the results. RESULTS: MAP decreased significantly from baseline at the following times: during the post-induction period, upon placement of the craniostat, upon skin incision and when the propofol infusion was switched off. HR increased significantly during laryngoscopy and at the following moments: intubation, post intubation (L + 1, L + 3, L + 5), craniostat placement, and extubation. ICP was lower throughout the surgical period except during laryngoscopy, when this variable increased significantly. CPP decreased significantly after induction and returned to baseline after intubation. CPP was significantly higher after surgery. Recovery times after weaning from propofol infusion until eye opening in response to an order and until orientation were 13 +/- 3 and 22 +/- 4 min, respectively. The mean interval between withdrawal of propofol until extubation was 18 min. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous anesthesia with propofol in intracranial surgery (supratentorial tumors) affords hemodynamic stability and lowers ICP except during laryngoscopy. Early recovery from anesthesia allows for neurological assessment and vigilance during the immediate postoperative period.     

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.     

Lack of interaction between propofol and vecuronium.

We estimated the potency of vecuronium and measured the onset and duration of its action during total intravenous anesthesia with propofol to examine the possibility of any interaction between these two drugs. Propofol infusion was administered according to a three-step dosage scheme, and neuromuscular block was monitored by measuring the force of contraction of the adductor pollicis muscle after single-twitch stimulation of the ulnar nerve at 0.1 Hz. A control group of patients were similarly studied during anesthesia with thiopental, nitrous oxide, oxygen, and fentanyl. The ED50 and ED95 (dose required to produce a 50% and 95% depression of twitch tension, respectively) of vecuronium in patients given total intravenous anesthesia (n = 24) were 24 (22-27, 95% confidence limits) and 41 (37-48, 95% confidence limits) micrograms/kg, respectively, and in the control group (n = 24), 20 (17-24) and 39 (34-37) micrograms/kg, respectively. The onset of action of an 80-micrograms/kg dose (2 x ED95) of vecuronium was 3.6 +/- 1.2 and 4.1 +/- 1.7 min (mean +/- SD), in the propofol (n = 10) and control (n = 10) groups, respectively. The respective times to recovery of the twitch height to 25% of control and the recovery indices (25%-75% recovery of twitch height) in the propofol versus control groups were 28.3 +/- 6.6 and 28.0 +/- 1.7 min and 13.3 +/- 6.8 and 15.4 +/- 11.9 min, respectively. There were no significant differences in any of the measured variables between the propofol and control groups, indicating the lack of any interaction between propofol and vecuronium.     

The use of propofol in combination with fentanyl or buprenorphine in long-duration anesthesia

Fifty patients of both sexes, aged between 37 and 60 years old and belonging to ASA classes I, II, III and IV, underwent urological surgery lasting more than two hours under general anesthesia using a continuous infusion of propofol, N2O/O2, vecuronium bromide 0.02% infusion. Patients were divided into two groups of 25, group A and group B, according to whether they received fentanyl or buprenorphine as an analgesic. Propofol and fentanyl consumption in group A were 5.43 +/- 0.7 mg/kg/hour and 10.53 +/- 1.7 micrograms/kg respectively, whereas those of propofol and buprenorphine in group B were 5.71 +/- 1.08 mg/kg/hour and 6.05 +/- 0.06 micrograms/kg; there was a statistically non-significant difference for propofol consumption (p greater than 0.005). During the induction and maintenance phases of anesthesia, hemodynamic parameters decreased significantly (p less than 0.001) in comparison to starting values in both groups, but no statistically significant differences were observed. Buprenorphine prolonged reawakening from anesthesia by a few minutes but at the same time extended postoperative analgesia by several hours, thus improving the overall quality of the immediate postoperative period. The most frequent side effect (32% in group A and 52% in group B) was sinusal bradycardia.     

Comparison of propofol versus ketamine for anesthesia in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac catheterization.

Intravenous propofol was compared with ketamine in 20 pediatric patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. The study patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups so that 10 patients received ketamine and 10 patients received propofol. The hemodynamic responses and recovery characteristics of the two groups were compared. On induction of anesthesia, seven patients in the propofol group experienced a transient decrease in mean arterial blood pressure greater than 20% of baseline accompanied by mild arterial desaturation in four patients. Only one patient in the ketamine group experienced such a decrease in arterial blood pressure. This was the only significant difference (P less than 0.05) in hemodynamic effects between the two groups. Time to full recovery (mean +/- SD) was significantly less in the propofol group (24 +/- 19 min vs 139 +/- 87 min, P less than 0.001). In the ketamine group only, significant correlations (P less than 0.05) included time to full recovery with duration of anesthetic (r = 0.71) and time to full recovery with total drug dose per kilogram (r = 0.82). The authors conclude that propofol anesthesia is a practical alternative for pediatric patients undergoing elective cardiac catheterization and may be preferable to ketamine because of the significantly shorter recovery time.     

Use of a continuous infusion of propofol in maintaining anesthesia

This open, non comparative study was designed to establish a suitable dose regime for propofol when used as the main anaesthetic agent and given as a continuous infusion. Thirty patients (ASA I and II) were studied; five received muscle relaxants and were excluded from the analysis of maintenance and recovery. Immediately after an i.v. bolus dose of fentanyl (2 micrograms X kg-1), anaesthesia was induced in all patients with a mean dose of 2.03 mg X kg-1 propofol. Apnoea at induction was seen in 14 patients, with a mean duration of 151 s (range: 20 to 360 s). Mean, systolic and diastolic arterial pressures and heart rate decreased slightly but statistically significantly following induction. Fourteen patients, four of whom received propofol into a vein of the hand, noted pain on the injection site without venous sequelae immediately nor 24 h after anaesthesia. The mean duration of anaesthesia from induction to the patient ability to obey a simple command was approximately 40 min (range: 10 to 95 min). The mean infusion rate of propofol during maintenance was 0.86 +/- 0.04 mg X kg-1 X min-1. During maintenance, a satisfactory depth of anaesthesia was achieved in 23 patients without any further bolus injection of propofol. The mean time from stopping the infusion to eye opening on verbal command was 6.2 min, whilst that for orientation was 8.4 min. The anaesthesist assessed the quality of recovery as good or adequate in all the patients, who all were satisfied by the anaesthesia. No major adverse reactions occurred during or after anaesthesia and the incidence of minor side-effects was low.     

A multicenter comparison of isoflurane and propofol as adjuncts to remifentanil-based anesthesia

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare recovery, hemodynamics, and side effects of remifentanil-based anesthesia with hypnotic concentrations of isoflurane or propofol. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, randomized, two-group study. SETTING: 15 university and 5 municipal hospitals. Patients: 249 ASA physical status I, II, and III adult patients scheduled for elective gynecological laparoscopy, varicose vein, or arthroscopic surgery of at least 30 minutes' duration. INTERVENTIONS: Anesthesia was induced in the same manner in both groups: remifentanil-bolus (1 microg/kg), start of remifentanil-infusion (0. 5 microg/kg/min), followed by propofol as needed for induction. Five minutes after intubation, remifentanil was reduced to 0.25 microg/kg/min, and it was combined with either a propofol-infusion (0.1 mg/kg/min) or with isoflurane (0.6 vol% end-tidal) in O(2)/air. Adverse hemodynamic responses of heart rate and systolic blood pressure were recorded and treated according to a predefined protocol. With termination of surgery, anesthetic delivery was discontinued simultaneously without tapering, and recovery times were recorded. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the remifentanil-isoflurane or remifentanil-propofol treatment regimens. Recovery times (means +/- SD) were similar for spontaneous ventilation (5.8 +/- 3.2 min vs. 6. 3 +/- 3.7 min), extubation (7.6 +/- 3.5 vs. 8.5 +/- 4.2 min), eye opening (6.8 +/- 3.2 vs. 7.5 +/- 3.8 min), and arrival to the postanesthesia care unit (16.5 +/- 7.0 vs.18.0 +/- 7.2 min). There were no significant differences in adverse hemodynamic responses, postoperative shivering, nausea, or vomiting between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Emergence after remifentanil-based anesthesia with 0.6 vol% of isoflurane is at least as rapid as with 0.1 mg/kg/min propofol. Both isoflurane and propofol are suitable adjuncts to remifentanil, and the applied dosages are clinically equivalent with respect to emergence and recovery. Therefore, both combinations should be appropriate, particularly in settings in which rapid recovery from anesthesia is desirable, such as fast tracking and/or ambulatory surgery.