| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||

*Department of Anesthesiology, University of Milan; and
Department of Biostatistics, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. A. Casati, Department of Anesthesiology, IRCCS H San Raffaele, Via Olgettina 60, 20132 Milan, Italy. Address e-mail to casati.andrea{at}hsr.it
To determine the target plasma concentration of propofol required to place either a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) or a cuffed oropharyngeal airway (COPA), we started a continuous target-controlled infusion of propofol in 60 ASA physical status I or II unpremedicated patients scheduled for minor orthopedic surgery with peripheral nerve block. The target plasma concentration of propofol was initially set at 2 µg/mL. When the effect-site calculated concentration of propofol was equal to the plasma concentration according to the computer simulation, the target plasma concentration was increased by 0.5-µg/mL steps until successful placement of either the LMA (n = 30) or the COPA (n = 30). The mean target plasma concentration of propofol required to place a LMA was 4.3 ± 0.8 µg/mL compared with 3.2 ± 0.6 µg/mL to place a COPA (P < 0.001). To successfully place the airways in 95% of patients, the target plasma concentration of propofol had to be increased up to 4 µg/mL for the COPA and 6 µg/mL for the LMA. We conclude that placing a LMA in healthy, unpremedicated patients requires target plasma concentrations of propofol higher than those required for placing a COPA.
Implications: We evaluated the use of target-controlled infusion of propofol to place extratracheal airways in this prospective, randomized study and demonstrated that the target plasma concentration of propofol required to successfully place a laryngeal mask in >95% of healthy, unpremedicated patients is 6 µg/mL, compared with 4 µg/mL to place a cuffed oropharyngeal airway.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
M. Kodaka, Y. Okamoto, F. Handa, J. Kawasaki, and H. Miyao Relation between fentanyl dose and predicted EC50 of propofol for laryngeal mask insertion Br. J. Anaesth., February 1, 2004; 92(2): 238 - 241. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Kodaka, Y. Okamoto, K. Koyama, and H. Miyao Predicted values of propofol EC50 and sevoflurane concentration for insertion of laryngeal mask ClassicTM and ProSealTM Br. J. Anaesth., February 1, 2004; 92(2): 242 - 245. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Tanaka and T. Nishikawa Propofol requirement for insertion of cuffed oropharyngeal airway versus laryngeal mask airway with and without fentanyl: a dose-finding study Br. J. Anaesth., January 1, 2003; 90(1): 14 - 20. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Lehmann, J. Boldt, E. Thaler, S. Piper, and U. Weisse Bispectral Index in Patients with Target-Controlled or Manually-Controlled Infusion of Propofol Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2002; 95(3): 639 - 644. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. Gustorff, N. Lorenzl, L. Aram, C. G. Krenn, B. P. Jobst, and K. H. Hoerauf Environmental Monitoring of Sevoflurane and Nitrous Oxide Using the Cuffed Oropharyngeal Airway Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2002; 94(5): 1244 - 1248. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
|