JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Anesth Analg 1992; 75:536-538
© 1992 International Anesthesia Research Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McCarthy, G. J.
Right arrow Articles by Pandit, S. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McCarthy, G. J.
Right arrow Articles by Pandit, S. K.

Lack of Interaction Between Propofol and Vecuronium

Gerard J. McCarthy, FFARCSI, Rajinder K. Mirakhur, MD, and Sujit K. Pandit, MD

Department of Anaesthetics, The Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland and Department of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Abstract

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) µg/kg, respectively, and in the control group (n = 24), 20 (17–24) and 39 (34–37) µg/kg, respectively. The onset of action of an 80-µg/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.







Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 1992 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press
Copyright © 1992 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.