Clinical comparison of 'single agent' anaesthesia with sevoflurane versus target controlled infusion of propofol

The introduction of total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) andthe use of volatile induction/maintenance anaesthesia (VIMA)has led to the rediscovery of ‘single agent’ anaesthesia,eliminating the transition phase from induction to maintenance.We compared quality, patient acceptability and cost of TIVAusing target control infusion (TCI) with propofol and VIMA withsevoflurane. Forty patients undergoing spinal surgery of 1–3h were assigned to one of two groups. Group I received propofol–air–oxygenfor induction followed by propofol–air–oxygen formaintenance. Group II received 8% sevoflurane–oxygen forinduction and sevoflurane–oxygen–nitrous oxide formaintenance. Propofol had a significantly faster mean (SD) inductiontime (67 (20) s) than sevoflurane (97 (38) s) but was associatedwith double the incidence of involuntary movements. Althoughnot significant, twice the number of interventions by the anaesthetistwere required to maintain an adequate level of anaesthesia inthe sevoflurane group. Emergence times, characteristics, postoperativenausea, vomiting and pain were unaffected by the anaesthetictechnique. However, a more predictable emergence time was foundfollowing sevoflurane. Cardiovascular stability was good andcomparable in both groups. The majority of patients found eithertechnique acceptable and would choose the same anaesthetic again.Induction and maintenance was substantially cheaper with sevoflurane(£28.06) compared with propofol (£41.43). Br J Anaesth 2000; 85: 541–6     

TIVA mit Propofol/Remifentanil oder balancierte Anästhesie mit Sevofluran/Fentanyl bei laparoskopischen Operationen

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to investigate the differences between TIVA with propofol/remifentanil (P/R) and balanced anaesthesia with sevoflurane/fentanyl (S/F) in gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Emphasis was put on haemodynamic reaction, recovery profile, postoperative side effects and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Sixty patients were randomly assigned to receive either total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol/remifentanil or anaesthesia with sevoflurane/fentanyl. After premedication (midazolam) and induction of anesthesia (propofol, atracurium) in both groups, either 1 microgram/kg fentanyl (S/F) or 1 microgram/kg remifentanil (P/R) was injected. Anaesthesia was maintained with 0.5 microgram/kg/min remifentanil (reduced to 50% after 5 min) and 0.06 microgram/kg/min propofol (P/R) or 1.7 vol % sevoflurane (S/F). Both groups were mechanically ventilated with 30% oxygen in air. The administration of sevoflurane and the infusion of the anaesthetics were adjusted to maintain a surgical depth of anaesthesia. For postoperative analgesia 1 g paracetamol was administered rectally prior to surgery. After recovery 20 mg/kg metamizol was given intravenously. At the end of surgery the anaesthetics were discontinued and haemodynamics, early emergence from anaesthesia, pain level, frequency of analgesic demand, incidence of PONV, shivering and patient satisfaction were assessed. Parameters were recorded for 24 h postoperatively. RESULTS: Recovery time after propofol-remifentanil anaesthesia was significantly shorter than after administration of sevoflurane and fentanyl (spontaneous ventilation 4.1 vs. 6.3 min, extubation 4.3 vs. 9.3 min, eye opening 4.4 vs 8.2 min, stating name 5.3 vs. 13.2 min, stating date of birth 5.4 vs. 13.3 min). There were no significant differences between the groups in shivering, pain score, analgesic demand and PONV. The S/F group responded to tracheal intubation with significantly higher blood pressure than the P/R group. During maintenance of anaesthesia heart rate in patients with S/F was significantly higher (P/R:HR max +16/-10; S/F:HR max +24/-0.). Measured on a scale (S/F 62%). CONCLUSION: Compared with patients given balanced anaesthesia with sevoflurane and fentanyl, TIVA with propofol and remifentanil proved to be particularly suited for gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Its major advantages are haemodynamic stability, significantly shorter times of emergence, and the exceptional acceptance by the patients.     

Different effects on circulatory control during volatile induction and maintenance of anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia: autonomic nervous activity and arterial cardiac baroreflex function evaluated by blood pressure and heart rate variability analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the different effects on autonomic circulatory control during volatile induction/maintenance of anesthesia (VIMA) vs total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Operating theater of a university hospital. PATIENTS: Twenty patients, with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I or II, were randomly allocated into the VIMA group (n = 10) or the TIVA group (n = 10). INTERVENTIONS: In the VIMA group, anesthesia was induced with 5% sevoflurane and 60% N2O in oxygen and maintained with 2% sevoflurane and 60% N2O in oxygen. In the TIVA group, anesthesia was induced with propofol 2.0 mg/kg intravenously by bolus injection and fentanyl 2 microg/kg, and maintained with an intravenous infusion of propofol 5 mg/kg.per hour and air-oxygen mixture. MEASUREMENTS: Monitoring included recordings of electrocardiographic and arterial blood pressure waveforms. Autonomic nervous activity and arterial cardiac baroreflex function were evaluated by analysis of blood pressure variability, heart rate variability, and transfer function analysis between these 2 variables. MAIN RESULTS: In the VIMA group, the low-frequency component of blood pressure variability (LF(SBP)) and low- and high-frequency components of the R-R interval variability (LF(RR) and HF(RR)) decreased significantly during anesthesia. In the TIVA group, LF(SBP) and LF(RR) decreased significantly. The degree of reduction in LF(SBP) was greater in the VIMA group than in the TIVA group. However, changes in R-R interval variability and cardiac baroreflex indices were not significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that although reductions in autonomic nervous modulation to the heart might not be so different between the 2 groups, reduction in sympathetic nervous modulation to peripheral vasculature is greater in the VIMA group than in the TIVA group.     

Propofol/Remifentanil versus Sevofluran/Remifentanil zur Anästhesie bei Unterbaucheingriffen im Säuglings-, Kindes- und Jugendalter

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) using propofol and remifentanil (P/R-group) and balanced anaesthesia (BA) using sevoflurane and remifentanil (S/R-group) for paediatric surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 120 patients aged 6 months to 16 years scheduled for elective minor lower abdominal surgery were randomly assigned to receive either propofol (5-10 mg/kg/h) and remifentanil (0.125-1.0 microgram/kg/min) or sevoflurane (1.0-1.5 MAC) and remifentanil (0.125-1.0 microgram/kg/min). Perioperative haemodynamics as well as recovery and discharge times, PONV and side-effects were studied. The patients vigilance, comfort and pain intensity were assessed postoperatively using the objective pain discomfort scale, the Steward post-anaesthetic recovery score and a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: Postoperative recovery (9.0 vs 11.6 min) and extubation times (11.8 vs. 15.0 min) as well as the time taken until a Steward post-anaesthetic recovery score > 3/4 (15.2 vs. 21.4 min) was reached were significantly shorter in the P/R-group. However, the length of time until discharge to the ward, postoperative comfort, pain intensity and analgesic requirements as well as PONV were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: With regards to the investigated parameters, TIVA with propofol and remifentanil is equally effective as BA with sevoflurane and remifentanil in paediatric patients. However, considering the selected dosing regimen, recovery times were significantly shorter for children after TIVA.     

Comparison of total intravenous anesthesia and sevoflurane-fentanyl anesthesia for outpatient otorhinolaryngeal surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the recovery characteristics of two widely used anesthetic techniques: remifentanyl-propofol and sevoflurane-fentanyl in a standardized ambulatory population.DESIGN: Randomized, single-blinded study. SETTING: University-affiliated medical center. PATIENTS: 50 ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing elective ambulatory otorhinolaryngeal surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized two groups to receive total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA group) with remifentanil and propofol or sevoflurane-fentanyl (SF group). TIVA patients received induction with propofol 1.5 mg/kg intravenously (IV) and remifentanil 0.5 microg/kg IV. The anesthesia was continued with a continuous infusion of propofol 100 microg/kg/min and remifentanil 0.0625-0.25 microg/kg/min. The SF group received, at induction, fentanyl 2 microg/kg followed by propofol 1.5 mg/kg IV. Maintenance was obtained with 1 to 1.5 minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane and bolus of fentanyl 1 microg/kg IV as needed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Early recovery times (eye opening, response to commands, extubation, orientation, operating room stay after surgery, and Aldrete score > or =9) and patient satisfaction were similar between the two groups. Postanesthetic discharge scoring system (PADSS) > or = 9 was significantly shorter for the TIVA group (135.9 +/- 51 vs. 103 +/- 32 min) (p < 0.01) but this difference was not associated with a shorter postanesthesia care unit (PACU) length of stay. CONCLUSION: Early recovery times are comparable between total intravenous anesthesia and sevoflurane-based anesthesia. Even though patients in the TIVA group achieved home readiness criteria in a significantly shorter time, this technique does not shorten PACU length of stay, which depends instead on multiple nonmedical and administrative issues.     

Cost-reduction analysis of propofol versus sevoflurane: maintenance of anaesthesia for gynaecological surgery using the bispectral index

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The study was designed to compare the costs of propofol versus sevoflurane for the maintenance of the hypnotic component of anaesthesia during general anaesthesia, guided by the bispectral index, for gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: Forty ASA Grade I-II female patients scheduled for gynaecological laparoscopy were randomly allocated to two groups. All patients received a continuous infusion of remifentanil (0.25 microg kg(-1) min(-1)) for 2 min. Then anaesthesia was induced with propofol 1% at 300 mL h(-1) until loss of consciousness. To guide the bispectral index between 40 and 60, Group 1 patients received propofol 10 mg kg(-1) h(-1) initially, which was increased or decreased by 2 mg kg(-1) h(-1) steps; Group 2 patients received sevoflurane, initially set at 2 vol.% and adjusted with steps of 0.2-0.4%. The time and quality of anaesthesia and recovery were assessed in two postoperative standardized interviews. RESULTS: Patient characteristics, the propofol induction dose, the bispectral index and the haemodynamic profiles during induction of anaesthesia, and its duration, were similar between the groups. In Group 1, 7.55 +/- 1.75 mg kg(-1) h(-1) propofol and in Group 2, 0.20 +/- 0.09 mL kg(-1) h(-1) liquid sevoflurane were used for maintenance. The cost for maintenance, including wasted drugs, was higher when using propofol (Euro 25.14 +/- 10.69) than sevoflurane (Euro 12.80 +/- 2.67). Postoperatively, recovery profiles tended to be better with propofol; however, the day after discharge no differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: When applying the bispectral index to guide the administration of hypnotic anaesthetic drugs, propofol-based maintenance of anaesthesia was associated with the highest cost. A trend towards a better recovery profile was obtained with propofol. However, on the day after discharge, no differences in quality were observed.     

Efficacy and effect of TIVA with propofol or dexmedetomidine versus sevoflurane without muscle relaxant during repair of the brachial plexus

BackgroundTotal intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) versus inhalational anesthesia was selected as the anesthetic method, in order to avoid the use of muscle relaxants during repair of brachial plexus injury. We designed this study to determine effect and efficacy of TIVA versus sevoflurane during repair of brachial plexus injury.MethodsSixty patients scheduled for repair of injured brachial plexus from January 2009 till December 2011 were enrolled in this prospective, single-blind, randomized study. They received either inhalation induction with sevoflurane and maintenance with sevoflurane and fentanyl (Group 1) or TIVA with, propofol and fentanyl (Group 2) or TIVA with dexmedetomidine and fentanyl (Group 3). Hemodynamics, intubation conditions, sedation score were assessed. Postoperative pain using visual analogue scale (VAS) was assessed. Discharge time, postoperative respiratory condition, any postoperative complications were recorded.ResultsAll groups provided a similar significant reduction in hemodynamics compared with baseline values. Respiratory rate values of dexmedetomidine–fentanyl group were significantly higher than those in other groups. Oxygen saturation values of dexmedetomidine–fentanyl group were significantly higher than those of propofol–fentanyl group. Time to reach an Aldrete score of 10 was similar in all groups. Patients in sevoflurane–fentanyl group have significantly higher visual analogue score than other groups. Sedation score was higher in the dexmedetomidine–fentanyl group.ConclusionTIVA with propofol and with dexmedetomidine was more effective and favorable anesthesia than sevoflurane anesthesia during repair of brachial plexus injury.     

Thiopentone pretreatment for propofol injection pain in ambulatory patients

This study investigated propofol injection pain in patients undergoing ambulatory anaesthesia. In a randomized, double-blind trial, 90 women were allocated to receive one of three treatments prior to induction of anaesthesia with propofol. Patients in Group C received 2 ml normal saline, Group L, 2 ml, lidocaine 2% (40 mg) and Group T, 2 ml thiopentone 2.5% (50 mg). Venous discomfort was assessed with a visual analogue scale (VAS) 5–15 sec after commencing propofol administration using an infusion pump (rate 1000 μg · kg^?1 · min^?1). Loss of consciousness occurred in 60–90 sec. Visual analogue scores (mean ± SD) during induction were lower in Groups L (3.3 ± 2.5) and T (4.1 ± 2.7) than in Group C (5.6 ± 2.3); P = 0.0031. The incidence of venous discomfort was lower in Group L (76.6%; P < 0.05) than in Group C (100%) but not different from Group T (90%). The VAS scores for recall of pain in the recovery room were correlated with the VAS scores during induction (r = 0.7045; P < 0.0001). Recovery room discharge times were similar: C (75.9 ± 19.4 min); L 73.6 ± 21.6 min); T (77.1 ± 18.9 min). Assessing their overall satisfaction, 89.7% would choose propofol anaesthesia again. We conclude that lidocaine reduces the incidence and severity of propofol injection pain in ambulatory patients whereas thiopentone only reduces its severity.     

七氟醚在小儿麻醉中应用的体会

目的：七氟醚由于血／气分配系数低。诱导速度快．且无气道刺激性,是目前较为适宜做吸入诱导的吸入类麻醉药．尤其是针对小儿手术的麻醉。本文探讨七氟醚在小儿麻醉方面的应用。方法：选择3—10岁颌面外科唇裂．颌面部软组织损伤、囊肿．神经外科颅骨骨折复位、脊膜膨出．以及眼科眶内肿物摘除、假限植入等择期手术100例。随机分为2组,第一组完全使用常规静脉诱导插管全麻;第二组使用七氟醚全凭吸入诱导麻醉。结果;所有患者拔管前后无躁动、无呃逆．喉痉挛等不良反应,而各组数据比较后．第二组时间数据明显优千第一组（P〉0．05）．生命体征数据则第一组较第二组偏低（P〉0．01）。结论：七氟醚由于肝肾毒性小,起效快、代谢快,可以安全良好的应用于对肌松要求不高的小儿麻醉手术。     

Dynamic cerebral blood flow autoregulation during sevoflurane anesthesia and TIVA

BACKGROUND: Dynamic cerebral blood flow autoregulation during sevoflurane anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) is unclear. We examined the cerebral circulation autoregulation during anesthesia by sevoflurane or TIVA. METHODS: We measured mean blood pressure (MBP) and blood flow velocity of the middle cerebral artery by a transcranial Doppler ultrasonography before and during anesthesia using sevoflurane (volatile induction and maintenance of anesthesia (VIMA) group) and using propofol and fentanyl (TIVA group), and the relationship between changes in MBP and cerebral blood flow velocity was evaluated using the method of transfer function analysis. We calculated transfer gain and coherence by cross-spectrum from autospectra of MBP and cerebral blood flow velocity. RESULTS: Transfer gain during anesthesia by TIVA in the low frequency range and high frequency range was near 1 cm.sec-1.mmHg-1. It was about equal to the value of transfer gain before anesthesia. But transfer gain during anesthesia by VIMA was above 2 cm.sec-1.mmHg-1. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that TIVA by propofol and fentanyl maintains the dynamic autoregulation of cerebral blood flow, but sevoflurane impairs the autoregulation.     

Comparison of single-breath vital capacity rapid inhalation with sevoflurane 5% and propofol induction on QT interval and haemodynamics for laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare two techniques to achieve induction of anaesthesia for laparoscopic surgery. A single-breath vital capacity rapid inhalation induction with sevoflurane was compared to intravenous propofol. Their effects on haemodynamics and the QT interval of the electrocardiogram were assessed. METHODS: Forty-four ASA I-II patients scheduled to undergo elective laparoscopic gynaecological surgery were divided into two groups. In the sevoflurane group (Group S, n = 22), general anaesthesia was induced with a single-breath vital capacity rapid inhalation of sevoflurane 5% with nitrous oxide (N2O) 65% in O2 and then anaesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane 1-1.5% with N2O 65% in O2. In the propofol group (Group P, n = 22), general anaesthesia was induced with propofol 2 mg kg(-1) intravenously and maintained with propofol 6 mg kg(-1) h(-1). Systolic, diastolic and mean arterial pressures, heart rate and end-tidal CO2 values were recorded before anaesthesia (basic value), during the induction period (time X), at 10 min (time Y) and at 30 min (time Z) of CO2 insufflation in all patients. QT intervals were calculated using Bazett's equation. RESULTS: Systolic, diastolic and mean arterial pressure values during the induction period (time X) were lower than the basic value in both groups (P < 0.05). In Group S, QTc intervals were significantly longer during the induction period (time X) and at the tenth min of CO2 insufflation (time Y) than Group P (P < 0.05). Five patients at time X and two patients at time Y developed ventricular dysrhythmias, which improved spontaneously in Group S. In Group P, there was no significant difference in QTc intervals and only one patient developed a ventricular dysrhythmia at time Y. CONCLUSIONS: Single-breath vital capacity rapid inhalation induction technique with sevoflurane can cause prolongation of the QT interval and dysrhythmias, compared with induction and maintenance of anaesthesia with propofol in laparoscopic surgery.     

Ondansetron does not modify emergence agitation in children

In this prospective, placebo-controlled study, we evaluated the effect of prophylactic ondansetron therapy on emergence agitation of children who underwent minor surgery below the umbilicus. Seventy children aged one to six years and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I were studied. Children were premedicated with midazolam rectally and were randomly assigned to receive either ondansetron (Group O) or placebo (Group P) in combination with caudal anaesthesia. Children in Group O received intravenous ondansetron (0.1 mg/kg for children weighing < 40 kg, 4 mg for children weighing > 40 kg) and Group P (n = 35) received normal saline 2 ml following anaesthesia induction with sevoflurane. Airway management was provided with LMA-Proseal without muscle relaxation and anaesthesia maintenance was provided with a 60:40 N2O:O2 mixture and sevoflurane. Emergence agitation was evaluated with a ten point scale and pain level was assessed every 10 minutes for the first 30 minutes after admission to the recovery room. There were no significant differences between the placebo and ondansetron groups with respect to demographic, anaesthetic and surgical details. Incidences of emergence agitation in ondansetron and placebo groups were similar (32.4% and 30.3% at 10 minutes respectively). Mean modified Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario pain scale scores and mean ten-point scale scores and emergence agitation incidences decreased similarly after 10 minutes in both groups. Ready time for discharge was similar between the groups. Agitated patients had significantly increased ready time for discharge compared to non-agitated patients (P = 0.001). Prophylactic intravenous ondansetron administration does not reduce emergence agitation comparing to placebo after sevoflurane anaesthesia.     

Cost-effectiveness of inhalational, balanced and total intravenous anaesthesia for ambulatory knee surgery

Purpose

A randomized, blinded clinical trial was undeitaken to compare recovery charactenstics and cost-benefits associated with three general anaesthetic techniques for arthroscopic knee surgery in an ambulatory care setting.

Methods

Ninety three. ASA Physical Status l-ll patients were randomly allocated to receive one of three types of general anaesthesia: isoflurane /fentanyl/N₂O (Group INH); alfentanil/N₂O (Group BAL); or propofol/alfentanil/O₂ (Group TIVA). Postoperative recovery profiles were evaluated at 30, 60, 90 and 120 min after emergence from anaesthesia, and direct and indirect costs of each anaesthetic were compared.

Results

The most rapid emergence was observed in Group BAL (2.2 ± 1.5 min, P< 0.000l compared with groups INH and TIVA), although the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting was also highest in this group (P = 0.02 compared with groups INH and TIVA). However, overall patient satisfaction, and mean times to discharge from the Post Anaesthesia Recovery Unit and hospital, were rapid and similar in all three groups. During anaesthesia which lasted 40–45 min, nearly a four-fold difference was observed in the direct costs of anaesthetic drugs: $16.4 ± 4.4 (Group INH). $45.3 ± 11.4 (Group BAL) and $63.4 ± 17.9 (Group TIVA, P < 0.001 between groups): while indirect costs were similar.

Conclusions

For arthroscopic knee surgery. INH anaesthesia with isoflurane/fentanyl/N₂O is associated with similar hospital discharge times, and comparable levels of patient satisfaction as either BAL or TIVA. While indirect costs were similar, lower direct costs suggest that there may be a pharmacoeconomic benefit associated with the use of a “standard” isoflurane/fentanyl/N₂O anaesthetic in certain day care surgery procedures.     

Neuromuskuläre Blockade nach Atracurium und Alcuronium unter dem Einfluß von Propofol und Thiopental

Does propofol or thiopentone enhance the effect of nondepolarizing muscle relaxants? We evaluated the effects of propofol and thiopentone on the pharmacodynamics of atracurium and alcuronium in 43 surgical patients (ASA I and II) under general anaesthesia. Methods. The patients were randomized into five groups, A–E. Anaesthesia was induced in all patients with fentanyl 4?μg/kg i.v. Patients in groups A and C patients received thiopentone 7?mg/kg i.v., and relaxation was achieved with alcuronium 0.25?mg/kg (group A) and atracurium 0.5?mg/kg (group C). Electromyography (train of four, TOF) was used to determine the time of onset of relaxation (AZ) and the maximum degree of blockade (T%). The recovery times to 25%, 50% and 75% of baseline muscle strength were recorded. Additionally, the TOF ratio T4:T1 was calculated, indicating the probable end of relaxation at a ratio of 0.7. At the beginning of the recovery phase (T1=15%) propofol 1% 3?mg/kg was given, and the effect on the TOF was measured. Patients in groups B and D patients received total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) with propofol 1% 6–12?mg/kg per hour continuously after induction with 3?mg/kg. The action profile of alcuronium 0.25?mg/kg (group B) and atracurium 0.5?mg/kg (group D) were recorded. Group E patients received thiopentone (10?mg/kg per hour) under the use of atracurium 0.5?mg/kg. Ventilation was performed with 30%/70% oxygen and N₂O. The results were analyzed for significance using the Mann-Whitney U-test (P=0.019). Results. A slight difference in AZ was noted for alcuronium under the use of TIVA between propofol and thiopentone: 13?min and 5?min, respectively. Otherwise, the pharmacodynamics (T% and recovery of neuromuscular function) of the two relaxants exhibited no major differences related to thiopentone, propofol or their combination. The TOF was not influenced under additional propofol application. Noteworthy were the wide distribution of the time course of action (up to 3?h) and the magnitude of T% depression under alcuronium. Conclusion. Propofol and thiopentone have no potentiating influence on the time course of action and the magnitude of relaxation with alcuronium and atracurium. Pharmacodynamics of nondepolarizing muscle relaxants do not seem to be influenced by these two hypnotics.     

General anaesthesia or spinal anaesthesia for outpatient urological surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A variety of drugs and techniques have been introduced into ambulatory anaesthesia. The technique as well as the drugs used may hasten or delay home discharge. We compared recovery profiles and side-effects of spinal anaesthesia and total intravenous anaesthesia. METHODS: Forty unpremedicated ASA I-II patients (18-65 yr) undergoing varicocele repair were randomly divided into two groups. Spinal anaesthesia (26-G atraumatic needle) with hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% 5 mg and fentanyl 25 microg were given to patients in Group Spinal (n = 20). Patients in Group TIVA (n = 20) received total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol and remifentanil given by continuous infusion; a laryngeal mask was used to secure the airway. The duration of surgery, time to home readiness and side-effects were recorded. RESULTS: The two groups were comparable with respect to patients' characteristics and duration of surgery. The times to achieve ambulation were similar between groups (Spinal = 78.4 +/- 40.9 min, TIVA = 75.9 +/- 13.8 min). Urinary voiding was a requirement for discharge after spinal anaesthesia and the time for home readiness was longer in Group Spinal (158.0 +/- 40.2 versus 94.9 +/- 18.8 min) (P < 0.05). Two patients reported pruritus and one reported postdural puncture headache in Group Spinal, whereas two patients reported nausea in Group TIVA. Patients in Group TIVA had a greater need for analgesia postoperation (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In healthy unpremedicated men undergoing minor urological operations, total intravenous anaesthesia with remifentanil and propofol provided as safe and effective anaesthesia as spinal block with the advantage of earlier home readiness.     

Quality of recovery in children: sevoflurane versus propofol

BACKGROUND: Sevoflurane, with its low pungency and low blood and tissue solubility, is an attractive anaesthetic in paediatric outpatient surgery. Propofol-anaesthesia is recognised for its rapid and clear-headed emergence. This study was designed to compare emergence and recovery characteristics of sevoflurane and propofol anaesthesia for tonsillectomy in children. METHODS: Children aged 3-10 years, undergoing elective tonsillectomy, were randomly assigned to receive propofol (n=25, induction with 3 mg x kg(-1), maintenance with 100-250 microg x kg(-1) min(-1)) or sevoflurane anaesthesia (n=25, induction 7 vol.%, maintenance 2-3 vol.%). Tracheal intubation was performed with alfentanil 20 microg x kg(-1) and atracurium 0.5 mg x kg(-1). Ventilation was controlled to maintain normocapnia and all patients received N2O/O2 (60:40 vol.%) for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia. At the end of surgery infiltration of the operative sites with bupivacaine 2 mg x kg(-1) was provided for postoperative analgesia. Emergence, recovery, discharge times, and incidence of side effects were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Time to extubation (14 vs 15 min), time to response to simple verbal command (21 vs 21 min) and time to discharge from the recovery room (45 vs 50 min) were similar in the sevoflurane and propofol groups, respectively. There was a significantly greater incidence of postoperative agitation in the sevoflurane group (46%) compared with the propofol group (9%) (P=0.008). This did not, however, delay discharge from the recovery room. The incidence of nausea and vomiting was not significantly different (8% vs 0%; P=0.49). CONCLUSION: In children, recovery from anaesthesia with sevoflurane results in a higher incidence of agitation compared with propofol.     

Anaesthesia for electroconvulsive therapy: a comparison of sevoflurane with propofol

This study was a prospective audit of patients receiving either intravenous induction of anaesthesia with propofol 2 mg/kg or inhalational induction using 8% sevoflurane for patients undergoing electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). All patients received inhaled 50% nitrous oxide. The anaesthetic agent was determined by psychiatrist preference. Each psychiatrist nominated only one induction technique for all his or her patients. Seventy treatments were studied in each group. Induction time was longer in the sevoflurane group. The time from commencing induction to loss of verbal contact was [mean (SD)] 64 (29.9) seconds for sevoflurane and 36 (33.6) seconds for propofol (P=0.001). Time to loss of eyelash reflex was 82 (32.6)s for sevoflurane and 44 (17.9)s for propofol (P<0.001). The duration of seizure activity was longer in sevoflurane patients, 35 (17.8)s, compared with 20 (9.8)s in the propofol group (P< 0.001). Discharge times were similar Minor adverse effects occurred in three patients, all in the sevoflurane group (one bradycardia and two episodes of post-procedural nausea). There were no major adverse events in either group. Propofol and sevoflurane both appear to be suitable agents for induction of anaesthesia for ECT.     

Ketamine for co-induction of anaesthesia in oral surgery

Ketamine has additive interaction with propofol and analgesic properties. The aim was to determine if ketamine co-induction reduced propofol induction doses, improved pain relief and produced any adverse effects. Forty ASA I and II patients scheduled for extraction of third molars were enrolled in a randomised, double blind study. Group ketamine patients (n=20) received ketamine 0.3 mg/kg prior to induction with propofol running at 300 ml/h. Group control patients (n=20) received a corresponding volume of normal saline. All patients were intubated and maintained on N₂O:O₂ admixture and isoflurane. Post-operatively, patients were given i.v. fentanyl boluses, oral Panadeine Forte or Oxycodone as rescue medication for pain. Data collected consisted of propofol induction doses, blood pressure and heart rate readings at 1 min intervals, visual analogue score (VAS) pain scores at various intervals and fentanyl requirements in recovery. Duration of surgery and time to discharge were also recorded. Possible side effects of nausea, dreams and hallucinations were noted. There was no significant difference in propofol induction doses, pain requirements and pain scores between the two groups. However, there was significant increase in the blood pressure (P<0.006) and heart rate (P<0.009) at induction. The discharge time in the ketamine group was not prolonged and no adverse side-effects like bad dreams or emergence delirium were noted. We conclude that low-dose ketamine at 0.3 mg/kg does not reduce the induction dose of propofol or improve the post-operative pain of oral surgery. However, this dose does not affect recovery or produce unpleasant side-effects, making it a possibility for use in day surgery.     

Propofol for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia at Caesarean section A comparison with thiopentone/enflurane

A propofol infusion regimen and a standard general anaesthetic were compared in 40 Chinese women undergoing elective Caesarean section. Twenty patients received propofol 2 mg/kg for induction of anaesthesia followed by propofol 6 mg/kg/hour, while 20 patients received thiopentone 4 mg/kg with enflurane 1% for maintenance of anaesthesia. All patients were given atracurium and their lungs ventilated with nitrous oxide 50% in oxygen until delivery of the neonate. The hypertensive response after intubation was of shorter duration in the propofol group compared with the thiopentone group. Induction to delivery times ranged from 5 to 14 minutes and neonates from both groups had similar and satisfactory Apgar scores. Neurologic and Adaptive Capacity Scores and umbilical cord blood gas analysis. However, a prolonged propofol infusion time before delivery may cause lower Neurologic and Adaptive Capacity Scores. There were no differences in maternal recovery times or psychomotor performance.     

Cost-effectiveness and high patient satisfaction in the elderly: sevoflurane versus propofol anaesthesia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The use of propofol compared with isoflurane is associated with improved patient comfort and decreased costs. However, as the cost saving, the quicker recovery time and patient comfort may not be evident if sevoflurane is substituted for isoflurane; these two anaesthetic agents were analysed in elderly patients. METHODS: In a prospective randomized study, 96 patients undergoing elective ophthalmic surgery received either total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol (Group P), propofol for induction and sevoflurane for maintenance (Group P/S) or sevoflurane for inhalation induction and maintenance (Group S). Analyses focussed on haemodynamics, the quality of recovery, and the costs for the anaesthetic and the entire procedure. RESULTS: Bradycardia or hypotension, mainly registered in Groups P and P/S, did not influence patients' recovery. In Group S, postoperative nausea and vomiting occurred frequently, and 50% of patients complained of discomfort during induction. In Group P/S, the costs for anaesthetics and total costs were lower than those in Groups P and S. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol- and sevoflurane-based maintenance of anaesthesia were similar with regard to patient comfort and recovery in the elderly. Cost analysis revealed that it was less expensive to use propofol for induction and sevoflurane for maintenance than to use either propofol or sevoflurane as sole agents for anaesthesia.