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.     

The effect of propofol vs desflurane on recovery from anesthesia with remifentanil in outpatient surgery]

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect on parameters of postanesthetic recovery of propofol and desflurane administered with high doses of remifentanil for major outpatient surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy patients were randomly assigned to receive propofol (target concentration 1.5-2 microg/ml) or desflurane in perfusion (end expiratory concentration 0.5 MAC) during maintenance of anesthesia with remifentanil (0.25-1 microg/kg/min). The anesthetic agents were withdrawn after surgery. We recorded the times until eye opening, respiration, tracheal extubation, ability to cough, response to verbal orders and orientation. We also recorded the time until a score of 10 on the Aldrete recovery scale was attained, pain on a visual analog scale, sedation on the Ramsay scale, and instances of nausea or vomiting during the first 24 h after surgery. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in patient characteristics, type of surgery or anesthesia were found. Times until early signs of postanesthetic recovery (eye opening, spontaneous breathing, tracheal extubation) were significantly less (p < 0.05) in the desflurane group. The groups were similar for all other parameters compared (times until ability to cough, respond to verbal orders, orientation and a score of 10 on the Aldrete scale). Duration of stay in the postanesthetic recovery unit, time in the day surgery ward and intensity of postoperative pain were also similar. The rate of postoperative nausea or vomiting was significantly lower in the propofol group. CONCLUSION: During anesthesia with remifentanil, the administration of desflurane is associated with better psychomotor recovery parameters than is propofol, but the rate of nausea and vomiting is higher with desflurane.     

Desflurane anesthesia after sevoflurane inhaled induction reduces severity of emergence agitation in children undergoing minor ear-nose-throat surgery compared with sevoflurane induction and maintenance

Emergence agitation may occur after general anesthesia with volatile anesthetics in children. We designed this study to examine the emergence behavior of children undergoing ear-nose-throat surgery after sevoflurane induction and desflurane maintenance versus both sevoflurane induction and maintenance using a recently published Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) scale. In 38 premedicated children aged 12 mo to 7 yr mask induction with sevoflurane was performed and they were randomly assigned to receive either sevoflurane (n = 19) or desflurane (n = 19) for maintenance of general anesthesia. Time to tracheal extubation, modified Aldrete score, emergence behavior, recovery complications, and pain scores were assessed. The PAED scale showed a significant advantage for desflurane (6 [0-15] versus 12 [2-20], maximum total score of 20 for severe agitation). Time to extubation was significantly shorter with desflurane than with sevoflurane (5.4 +/- 1.4 versus 13.4 +/- 1.8 min). The modified Aldrete score on arrival in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) was significantly lower in children receiving sevoflurane for maintenance. Time to discharge from PACU to normal ward and the incidence of adverse effects were not significantly different between the groups. In conclusion, the use of desflurane for maintenance of anesthesia after sevoflurane induction in children is associated with less severe emergence agitation and faster emergence times.     

The impact of isoflurane, desflurane, or sevoflurane on the frequency and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting after lumbar disc surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that anesthesia with the low-soluble inhalation anesthetics, sevoflurane, and desflurane, may result in a lower frequency and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) than anesthesia with isoflurane. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: Postoperative care unit and neurosurgical ward at a university hospital. PATIENTS: 625 ASA physical status I, II, and III patients undergoing elective lumbar disc surgery with general anesthesia were included in this study. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were enrolled sequentially to receive either 0.7%-1.2% isoflurane (year 2002), 3.5%-5.5% desflurane (year 2003), or 1.2%-1.9% sevoflurane (year 2004) for maintenance of anesthesia without nitrous oxide. Study personnel, general anesthesia management, and surgical technique remained unchanged over the three-year study period. MEASUREMENTS: Occurrence of PONV within 24 hours of the end of surgery was recorded. Secondary outcome measures were occurrence of multiple PONV episodes, maximum severity, time to the first PONV event, need for rescue medication, difference between the occurrence of PONV (indicator variable) and the expected risk of PONV (based on the Apfel score). MAIN RESULTS: Type of inhalation anesthetic had no influence on PONV frequency (9.3%, 11.2%, and 10.8% after isoflurane, desflurane, and sevoflurane, respectively; P = 0.8) or its severity (numerical rating scale, 4.5 +/- 2.0, 4.4 +/- 2.4, and 4.2 +/- 2.1; P = 0.9). Patients who received isoflurane experienced fewer early events but had a late peak of PONV frequency (P = 0.031). For every 10 minutes by which the total duration of the anesthesia exceeded the net time between incision and suture, the risk of PONV increased by a factor of 1.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.61; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference between the three inhalation anesthetics currently used with regard to frequency or severity of postoperative nausea, vomiting, or both.     

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.      

Standard anesthetic technique for middle ear surgical procedures: a comparison of desflurane and sevoflurane.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to compare desflurane and sevoflurane anesthesia for middle ear microsurgery. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred healthy adults undergoing middle ear surgery were assigned to receive either desflurane or sevoflurane as their anesthetic. Intraoperative hemodynamics and BIS numbers were recorded. Hemodynamics, pain, nausea/vomiting, discharge readiness, and other parameters were compared postoperatively and 24 hours later. RESULTS: No intraoperative differences were noted except in BIS scores which trended lower with desflurane. PACU blood pressures were higher after desflurane but pain scores, nausea/vomiting, rescue anti-emetics, recovery scores, and discharge times were similar. A significant difference was noted in anesthetic costs (desflurane > sevoflurane), and in patients with the lowest BIS scores associated with more nausea/vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: Both anesthetics may be used for ototic surgery but propofol anesthesia should still be considered in patients with a history of emetic sequelae. SIGNIFICANCE: Short-acting inhalational anesthetics produce excellent operating conditions and reduce costs for otologic surgery.     

Changing from Isoflurane to Desflurane toward the End of Anesthesia Does Not Accelerate Recovery in Humans

Background: In an attempt to combine the advantage of the lower solubilities of new inhaled anesthetics with the lesser cost of older anesthetics, some clinicians substitute the former for the latter toward the end of anesthesia. The authors tried to determine whether substituting desflurane for isoflurane in the last 30 min of a 120-min anesthetic would accelerate recovery.

Methods: Five volunteers were anesthetized three times for 2 h using a fresh gas inflow of 2 l/min: 1.25 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) desflurane, 1.25 MAC isoflurane, and 1.25 MAC isoflurane for 90 min followed by 30 min of desflurane concentrations sufficient to achieve a total of 1.25 MAC equivalent ("crossover"). Recovery from anesthesia was assessed by the time to respond to commands, by orientation, and by tests of cognitive function.

Results: Compared with isoflurane, the crossover technique did not accelerate early or late recovery (P > 0.05). Recovery from isoflurane or the crossover anesthetic was significantly longer than after desflurane (P < 0.05). Times to response to commands for isoflurane, the crossover anesthetic, and desflurane were 23 +/- 5 min (mean +/- SD), 21 +/- 5 min, and 11 +/- 1 min, respectively, and to orientation the times were 27 +/- 7 min, 25 +/- 5 min, and 13 +/- 2 min, respectively. Cognitive test performance returned to reference values 15-30 min sooner after desflurane than after isoflurane or the crossover anesthetic. Isoflurane cognitive test performance did not differ from that with the crossover anesthetic at any time.     

Emergence and recovery characteristics of desflurane versus sevoflurane in morbidly obese adult surgical patients: a prospective, randomized study

We compared postoperative recovery after desflurane (n = 25) versus sevoflurane (n = 25) anesthesia in morbidly obese adults (body mass index >/=35) who underwent gastrointestinal bypass surgery via an open laparotomy. After premedication with midazolam and metoclopramide 1 h before surgery, epidural catheter placement, induction of anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol, and tracheal intubation facilitated with succinylcholine, anesthesia was maintained with age-adjusted 1 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) desflurane or sevoflurane. Fentanyl IV, morphine or local anesthetics epidurally, and vasoactive drugs as needed were used to maintain arterial blood pressure at +/-20% of baseline value and to keep bispectral index of the electroencephalogram values between 40 to 60 U. Although patients were anesthetized with desflurane for a longer time (261 +/- 50 min versus 234 +/- 37 min, mean +/- sd; P < 0.05, desflurane versus sevoflurane, respectively) and for more MAC-hours (4.2 +/- 0.9 h versus 3.7 +/- 0.8 h; P < 0.05), significantly earlier recovery of response to command and tracheal extubation occurred in patients given desflurane than in patients given sevoflurane. The modified Aldrete score was greater in desflurane-anesthetized patients on admission to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) (P = 0.01) but not at discharge (P = 0.47). On admission to PACU, patients given desflurane had higher oxygen saturations (97.0% +/- 2.4%) than patients given sevoflurane (94.8% +/- 4.4%, P = 0.035). Overall, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and the use of antiemetics did not differ between the two anesthetic groups. We conclude that morbidly obese adult patients who underwent major abdominal surgery in a prospective, randomized study awoke significantly faster after desflurane than after sevoflurane anesthesia and the patients anesthetized with desflurane had higher oxygen saturation on entry to the PACU.     

Cost comparison of sevoflurane with isoflurane anesthesia in arthroscopic menisectomy surgery

PURPOSE: To determine the "real world" cost of sevoflurane compared with isoflurane in balanced general anesthesia for daycare arthroscopic menisectomy, we prospectively investigated perioperative drug requirement and expense as well as recovery time. METHODS: Following intravenous induction, 40 consenting adult patients randomly received either sevoflurane- or isoflurane-based anesthesia with a standardized gas inflow rate of 3 l x min. Recovery was assessed in the postanesthetic recovery room (PARR) in a double-blind manner at 15 min intervals using the Aldrete scoring system until patients met discharge criteria. RESULTS: Patient demographics, anesthetic duration, volatile potency and adjunct drug requirements were similar in the two groups. Total perioperative drug cost per patient was CAN$38.10+/-10.13 (mean +/- SD) for the sevoflurane group and $23.87+/-6.59 for the isoflurane group (P<0.01). Although the nonvolatile drug cost was comparable between the two groups, the volatile drug cost per patient was $19.40+/-8.80 for sevoflurane and $4.50+/-1.90 for isoflurane (P<0.01). This four-fold sevoflurane-to-isoflurane cost difference was the product of two ratios, both based on the volume of liquid anesthetic: the ratio of consumption, 2.1; and the ratio of institutional price, 2.1. Intraoperative hemodynamic response, time until discharge from the PARR and incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting did not significantly differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: When used to maintain equipotent balanced general anesthesia for daycare arthroscopic menisectomy, volatile consumption and cost were greater for sevoflurane compared with isoflurane. Nonvolatile perioperative drug cost and recovery times were similar, however, in the two groups.     

Pharmacokinetics of desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane, and halothane in pigs

We tested the prediction that the alveolar washin and washout, tissue time constants, and pulmonary recovery (volume of agent recovered during washout relative to the volume taken up during washin) of desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane, and halothane would be defined primarily by their respective solubilities in blood, by their solubilities in tissues, and by their metabolism. We concurrently administered approximately one-third the MAC of each of these anesthetics to five young female swine and determined (separately) their solubilities in pig blood and tissues. The blood/gas partition coefficient of desflurane (0.35 +/- 0.02) was significantly smaller (P less than 0.01) than that of sevoflurane (0.45 +/- 0.02), isoflurane (0.94 +/- 0.05), and halothane (2.54 +/- 0.21). Tissue/blood partition coefficients of desflurane and halothane were smaller than those for the other two anesthetics (P less than 0.05) for all tissue groups. As predicted from their blood solubilities, the order of washin and washout was desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane, and halothane (most to least rapid). As predicted from tissue solubilities, the tissue time constants for desflurane were smaller than those for sevoflurane, isoflurane, and halothane. Recovery (normalized to that of isoflurane) of the volume of anesthetic taken up was significantly greater (P less than 0.05) for desflurane (93% +/- 7% [mean +/- SD]) than for halothane (77% +/- 6%), was not different from that of isoflurane (100%), but was less than that for sevoflurane (111% +/- 17%). The lower value for halothane is consistent with its known metabolism, but the lower (than sevoflurane) value for desflurane is at variance with other presently available data for their respective biodegradations.     

Recovery and pharmacokinetic parameters of desflurane, sevoflurane, and isoflurane in patients undergoing urologic procedures.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the pharmacokinetics and the speed of recovery after inhalation anesthesia with desflurane, sevoflurane, and isoflurane in elective surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study. SETTING: University medical center. PATIENTS: 30 ASA physical status I and II adults presenting for elective surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Anesthesia was induced with etomidate and maintained with desflurane (n = 10), sevoflurane (n = 10), or isoflurane (n = 10) and nitrous oxide. The inhalation drugs were titrated until an adequate clinical depth of anesthesia was reached. At the end of anesthesia, the patients breathed oxygen via the endotracheal tube and after extubation via a face mask. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The groups were similar with respect to age, weight, duration of anesthesia, and mean arterial pressure. Mean end-tidal concentration (FA = FA0) at the end of anesthesia was 6.34 +/- 1.15% after desflurane, 1.85 +/- 0.42% after sevoflurane, and 1.10 +/- 0.24% after isoflurane. FA/FA0 decreased significantly faster with desflurane than with isoflurane, while there was little difference between desflurane and sevoflurane. As for the terminal half-life (t1/2), there were no differences among the groups (8.16 +/- 3.15 min after desflurane, 9.47 +/- 4.46 min after sevoflurane, and 10.0 +/- 5.57 min after isoflurane). The time until a command was followed for the first time was the same in all three groups (13.0 +/- 4.7 min after desflurane, 13.4 +/- 4.4 min after sevoflurane, and 13.6 +/- 3.4 min after isoflurane). There was no significant correlation between duration of anesthesia and the time until recovery. CONCLUSIONS: There are only minor differences with regard to the recovery phase in premedicated patients who receive clinically titrated inhalation anesthesia with desflurane, sevoflurane, or isoflurane.     

The effect of fentanyl on the emergence characteristics after desflurane or sevoflurane anesthesia in children

Desflurane and sevoflurane anesthesia are associated with emergence agitation in children. In this study, we examined the effect of a single intraoperative dose of fentanyl on emergence characteristics in children undergoing adenoidectomy. One hundred children, 2-7 yr old, were randomly assigned to receive desflurane or sevoflurane for maintenance of general anesthesia after an inhaled induction with sevoflurane and a 2.5 microg/kg dose of fentanyl. An observer blind-ed to the anesthetic technique assessed the times to achieve emergence, extubation and recovery criteria, as well as emergence behaviors. The results showed a similar incidence of severe emergence agitation after general anesthesia with desflurane (24%) and sevoflurane (18%). Times to achieve extubation and postanesthesia care unit discharge criteria were shorter with desflurane than with sevoflurane. With this technique, desflurane allows for a more rapid emergence and recovery than sevoflurane. In children receiving desflurane or sevoflurane, the concurrent use of fentanyl in a dose of 2.5 microg/kg results in a small incidence of emergence agitation. IMPLICATIONS: The concurrent use of fentanyl in a dose of 2.5 microg/kg in children receiving desflurane or sevoflurane results in a low incidence of emergence agitation. Desflurane allows for a more rapid emergence and recovery than sevoflurane.     

地氟烷与七氟烷在门诊手术全身麻醉维持中的对比研究：对苏醒早晚期及围手术期咳嗽的影响

背景目前地氧垸已经用于门诊全身麻醉手术的维持阶段,其相对于七氖烷在围手术期的优略性尚存争议。尽管各研究一致指出,地氟烷比七氟烷苏醒更快,但这种差异对苏醒晚期的影响却未有明确报道。并且,地氟烷与七氟烷相比,对咳嗽发生率的影响也存在争议。方法本研究中纳入了130例在全身麻醉下行浅表门诊手术的患者,随机分为2组。所有患者都静脉注射丙泊酚2mg/kg诱导,置入喉罩,采用1％-3％的七氟烷或3％-8％的地氟炕维持麻醉,吸入混合空气或氧气。调节吸入麻醉药的浓度,维持血流动力学稳定,并维持脑电双频谱指数（BIS）于50—60。并用局部浸润和静脉注射酮洛酸30mg镇痛。在手术结束时给予预防性止吐药物,包括昂丹司琼4mg、地塞米松4mg及甲氧氨普胺10mg。评估标准包括睁眼恢复时间,对指令做出反应的时间,定向力恢复的时间,14分快通道评分,首次进食时间,能坐立,可站立,独立行走及出院时间。手术后早期及离院后24小时内,记录患者对于麻醉的满意度,手术后第1天恢复正常活动的能力,不良反应的发生（如咳嗽、意向性运动、氧饱和度〈90％、咽痛及手术后恶心、呕吐）,手术后镇痛药及止吐药的使用情况。结果2组患者的流行病学资料相近。尽管围手术期地氯烷组咳嗽的总体发生率高于七氟烷组（分别为60％和32％,P〈0．05）,然而在真正应用吸入麻醉药期间（即麻醉维持中）,咳嗽发生率的组间差异无显著性。地氧烷组患者苏醒较快,但两组所有患者在离开手术室之前都达到了快通道恢复标准（快通道评分≥12）。此外,离院时间（七氟炕组90±31分钟,地氟炕组98±5分钟）及手术后第1天能恢复正常活动的患者比率（七氟烷48％,地氟炕60％）,在两组间的差异无显著性。结论用地氧烷进行维持全身麻醉具有苏醒迅速、咳嗽发生率高的特点。尽管与七氟烷相比,地氟炕在麻醉早期恢复较快,但两组晚期恢复的差异无显著性。两种吸入麻醉药都适用于门诊手术的麻醉。     

Isoflurane, desflurane and sevoflurane for carotid endarterectomy

After carotid endarterectomy under general anaesthesia, the rapid elimination of desflurane and sevoflurane may allow earlier postoperative neurological assessment than after the use of isoflurane. However, desflurane may be associated with tachycardia and hypertension and may therefore increase cardiovascular risk. We investigated haemodynamic and recovery characteristics in patients scheduled for carotid endarterectomy who were anaesthetised with isoflurane, sevoflurane or desflurane. No significant peri-operative differences were noted in cardiac index or ST segment analysis. The times to extubation, movement on command and consciousness were shorter after desflurane and sevoflurane than after isoflurane anaesthesia. Postoperative pain, nausea, vomiting and shivering were similar in the three study groups.     

Sevoflurane for interventional neuroradiology procedures is associated with more rapid early recovery than propofol

PURPOSE: Sevoflurane and propofol are both suitable for neuroanesthesia but have not previously been compared as maintenance agents for long duration (one to five hours) procedures. METHODS: Using a multicentre international study protocol, 103 patients were randomized to receive either sevoflurane or propofol for maintenance of anesthesia during interventional neuroradiology procedures. After a standardized induction of anesthesia with propofol, 53 patients received sevoflurane 1 to 3% with 60% nitrous oxide (N(2)O) in oxygen (O(2)), and 50 patients received propofol 4 to 10 mg x kg(-1) x hr(-1) with 60% N(2)O in O(2). Maintenance agents were titrated against systemic arterial blood pressure (baseline mean arterial pressure +/- 20%). Recovery times, changes in sedation, pain, nausea and vomiting and psychomotor function during recovery and use of rescue medication were recorded. RESULTS: The group receiving sevoflurane had a more rapid recovery to spontaneous ventilation, extubation, eye opening and orientation compared to the group receiving propofol (3 vs 4 min, P = 0.01; 5 vs 6 min, P = 0.015; 7 vs 10 min, P < 0.001; 13 vs 17 min, P = 0.028; respectively). Sedation, pain, nausea and vomiting, and psychomotor function scores were similar in the two groups. Use of opioid boluses and vasopressors were similar. CONCLUSION: The use of sevoflurane for maintenance of anesthesia for prolonged neuroradiological procedures is associated with more rapid early recovery than propofol and is associated with similar side effects. Sevoflurane and propofol can both be recommended for these procedures. The clinical benefit of the more rapid recovery with sevoflurane is unknown.     

Fast-track eligibility of geriatric patients undergoing short urologic surgery procedures

Our primary objective was to assess the feasibility of geriatric patients (>65 yr) bypassing the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) after ambulatory surgery. A secondary objective was to compare recovery profiles when using three different maintenance anesthetics. Ninety ASA physical status I--III consenting outpatients (>65 yr) undergoing short urologic procedures were randomly assigned to one of three anesthetic treatment groups. After a standardized induction with fentanyl and propofol, anesthesia was maintained with propofol (75-150 microg center dot kg(-1) center dot min(-1) IV), isoflurane (0.7%-1.2% end tidal), or desflurane (3%-6% end tidal), in combination with nitrous oxide 70% in oxygen. In all three groups, the primary anesthetic was titrated to maintain an electroencephalographic-bispectral index value of 60-65. Recovery times, postanesthesia recovery scores, and therapeutic interventions in the PACU were recorded. Although emergence times were similar in the three groups, the time to achieve a fast-track discharge score of 14 was significantly shorter in patients receiving desflurane compared with propofol and isoflurane (22 +/- 23 vs 33 +/- 25 and 44 +/- 36 min, respectively). On arrival in the PACU, a significantly larger percentage of patients receiving desflurane were judged to be fast-track eligible compared with those receiving either isoflurane and propofol (73% vs 43% and 44%, respectively). The number of therapeutic interventions in the PACU was also significantly larger in the Isoflurane group when compared with the Propofol and Desflurane groups (21 vs 11 and 7, respectively). In conclusion, use of desflurane for maintenance of anesthesia should facilitate PACU bypass ("fast-tracking") of geriatric patients undergoing short urologic procedures. IMPLICATIONS: Geriatric outpatients undergoing brief urologic procedures more rapidly achieve fast-tracking discharge criteria after desflurane (versus isoflurane and propofol) anesthesia. Use of isoflurane was also associated with an increased need for nursing interventions in the early recovery period compared with desflurane and propofol.     

Psychomotor performance after desflurane anesthesia: a comparison with isoflurane

Recovery and psychomotor performance were studied in 80 ASA physical status I-III adult patients undergoing outpatient surgery. Patients were divided into four equal groups: thiopental induction of anesthesia followed by desflurane in nitrous oxide and oxygen (Th-DES-N2O/O2), thiopental induction of anesthesia followed by isoflurane in nitrous oxide and oxygen (Th-ISO-N2O/O2), thiopental induction of anesthesia followed by desflurane in oxygen (Th-DES-O2), and desflurane inhaled induction followed by desflurane in oxygen (DES-DES-O2). Patients were excluded from analysis if they required opioids or antiemetics postoperatively. The use of desflurane was associated with more rapid awakening compared with isoflurane (time to eye opening 9.45 +/- 0.67 min [Th-DES-N2O/O2] and 13.8 +/- 1.59 min [Th-ISO-N2O/O2], P less than 0.05). Psychomotor performance was measured using the choice reaction time and critical flicker fusion threshold. At 30 min after discontinuing anesthesia, five patients in the Th-ISO-N2O/O2 group and one patient in the Th-DES-N2O/O2 group were too sleepy to perform psychomotor tests. In addition, five patients who received Th-DES-O2 and one patient who received the inhaled induction and maintenance of anesthesia with desflurane in oxygen were too sleepy to perform tests at 30 min. Patients receiving Th-DES-N2O/O2 showed less impairment of choice reaction time than those receiving Th-ISO-N2O/O2. Critical flicker fusion threshold, however, showed no difference between groups. The use of thiopental was associated with delayed recovery. Compared with isoflurane, desflurane anesthesia is associated with more rapid initial awakening and less impairment of choice reaction time.     

Postoperative recovery after desflurane, propofol, or isoflurane anesthesia among morbidly obese patients: a prospective, randomized study

Recovery from anesthesia might be compromised in obese patients. Because of its pharmacological properties, desflurane might allow rapid postoperative recovery for these patients. We compared postoperative recovery for 36 obese patients randomized to receive either desflurane, propofol, or isoflurane to maintain anesthesia during laparoscopic gastroplasties. Anesthesia was induced with propofol and succinylcholine IV and was maintained with rocuronium, alfentanil, inhaled nitrous oxide, and the study drug. Immediate recovery (i.e., times from the discontinuation of anesthesia to tracheal extubation, eye opening, and the ability to state one's name) was measured. At the time of postanesthesia care unit (PACU) admission, arterial saturation and the ability of patients to move were recorded. In the PACU, intermediate recovery was measured by using sedation and psychometric evaluations, 30, 60, and 120 min postoperatively. Data were compared between groups by using the Kruskal-Wallis and chi(2) tests. Results were reported as means +/- SD. P: < 0.05, compared with desflurane, was considered significant. Immediate recovery occurred faster, and was more consistent, after desflurane than after propofol or isoflurane (times to extubation were 6 +/- 1 min, 13 +/- 8 min [P: < 0.05, compared with desflurane], and 12 +/- 6 min [P: < 0.05, compared with desflurane], respectively). At PACU admission, SpO(2) values were significantly higher and patient mobility was significantly better after desflurane than after isoflurane or propofol. Sedation was significantly less pronounced with desflurane at 30 and 120 min postoperatively. In morbidly obese patients, postoperative immediate and intermediate recoveries are more rapid after desflurane than after propofol or isoflurane anesthesia. This advantage of desflurane persists at least for 2 h after surgery and is associated with both an improvement in patient mobility and a reduced incidence of postoperative desaturation. Implications: In morbidly obese patients, postoperative immediate and intermediate recoveries are more rapid and consistent after desflurane than after propofol or isoflurane anesthesia.     

Clinical comparison of sevoflurane and isoflurane in healthy patients.

We compared blood pressure and heart rate changes in healthy patients during anesthesia with sevoflurane (n = 50) versus isoflurane (n = 25) and the rate of recovery after such anesthesia. After premedication with intravenous administration of midazolam, induction of anesthesia with thiopental, and intubation of the trachea facilitated with succinylcholine or vecuronium, anesthesia was maintained with approximately 1 MAC (sevoflurane, 2.05%; isoflurane, 1.15%) of the volatile anesthetic in oxygen for the duration of the operation. Anesthetic concentration was varied as indicated to maintain arterial blood pressure at +/- 20% of baseline values. Sevoflurane and isoflurane produced similar systolic and diastolic arterial blood pressures, but heart rate after incision was faster in patients given isoflurane. Recovery of response to command was shorter in patients given sevoflurane than that in patients given isoflurane (7.5 +/- 0.5 min versus 18.6 +/- 2.0 min). Consistent with this finding, venous blood drawn after anesthesia showed a more rapid initial decay with sevoflurane. Nausea and vomiting were comparable in both groups. We conclude that sevoflurane anesthesia, as compared with isoflurane, is associated with possible advantageous effects on heart rate and recovery.     

The effect of anesthetic technique on recovery from neuromuscular blockade with cisatracurium

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of four anesthetic techniques on recovery after a single dose of 0.2 mg/kg of cisatracurium. PATIENTS AND METHOD: After giving informed consent, 96 patients of both sexes, ASA I-III, were enrolled. Anesthesia was induced with fentanyl, propofol O2-N2O (FiO2 40%) after which the patients were randomly assigned to four groups according to maintenance technique: propofol by infusion, sevoflurane, desflurane or isoflurane at 1.3 MAC. Neuromuscular block was monitored (electromyographic recording of the pollicis adductor). Variables recorded were time of maximum block, duration of action of 1% and 25%, and recovery indices at T0-TR75 andT25%-T75%. ANOVA was performed ( = 0.05 and beta = 0.1). RESULTS: The groups were homogeneous. Time until recovery of 25% of baseline amplitude of the first response to a train of four (TOF) (T1) was longer in the desflurane group (68.4 +/- 11.1 min) than in the propofol group (60.2 +/- 9.4 min; p < 0.05). Time until recovery of 75% of the TOF-ratio was longer in the sevoflurane (96.8 +/- 13.1 min), desflurane (101.5 +/- 14.4 min) and isoflurane (94.1 +/- 13.9 min) groups than in the propofol group (83.7 +/- 1.3 min) (p < 0.0001).Times until recovery of T1 up to 1% were not statistically different: 45.8 +/- 10.7 (propofol), 50.6 +/- 11.0 (sevoflurane), 51.3 +/- 11.5 (desflurane) and 46.5 +/- 11.2 min (isoflurane). The 25% - 75% recovery index was also similar at 19.0 +/- 9.3 (propofol), 20.0 +/- 5.1 (sevoflurane), 25.7 +/- 12.4 (desflurane) and 20.9 +/- 7.9 (isoflurane). CONCLUSIONS: The inhaled anesthetics studied prolong the duration of clinical effect of cisatracurium more than does propofol.