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





,§
,||
Department of Anesthesia and General Intensive Care (
*A) and (
B), and
Outcomes ResearchTM, University of Vienna;
§Apotheus Laboratories, Ltd., Lubbock, Texas;
||Department of Anesthesia, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California; and
||Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Clinical Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Vienna, Austria
Address correspondence to Dr. Ozan Akça, Department of Anesthesia and General Intensive Care (A), University of Vienna, Währinger-Gürtel 1820, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. Address e-mail to 73674.63{at}CompuServe.com
We compared two conventional induction techniques (thiopental and propofol), an inhaled induction with sevoflurane using a circle system, and a rebreathing method. Fentanyl 1 µg/kg was given to women undergoing 10- to 20-min procedures. Anesthesia was induced (n = 20 each) with one of the following: 1) sevoflurane and N2O from a rebreathing bag (Sevo/Bag). A 5-L bag was prefilled with a mixture of sevoflurane 7% and N2O 60% in oxygen. The bag was connected between the normal circle system, separated by a spring-loaded valve; 2)sevoflurane 8% and N2O 60% from a circle system on a conventional anesthesia machine with a total fresh gas flow of 6 L/min (Sevo/Circle); 3) propofol 3 mg/kg as an IV bolus; 4) thiopental sodium 5 mg/kg as an IV bolus. Postoperative nausea and vomiting was treated with ondansetron. Induction times were comparable with each method. Recovery duration was shortest with sevoflurane, intermediate with propofol, and longest with thiopental. Induction drug costs were lowest with Sevo/Bag and thiopental, intermediate with Sevo/Circle, and highest with propofol. However, sevoflurane (by either method) caused considerable nausea and vomiting that required treatment. Consequently, total drug cost was least with thiopental, intermediate with Sevo/Bag and propofol, and greatest with Sevo/Circle. Thus, no single technique was clearly superior.
Implications: Anesthetic induction techniques influence awakening time, recovery duration, and drug costs. We tested two IV methods and two inhaled techniques. However, none of the four tested methods was clearly superior to the others.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
M. C. Lewis, R. I. Gerenstein, and G. Chidiac Onset time for sevoflurane/nitrous oxide induction in adults is prolonged with increasing age. Anesth. Analg., June 1, 2006; 102(6): 1699 - 1702. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. A. van den Berg, D. A. Chitty, R. D. Jones, M. S. Sohel, and A. Shahen Intravenous or Inhaled Induction of Anesthesia in Adults? An Audit of Preoperative Patient Preferences Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2005; 100(5): 1422 - 1424. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Yang, P. T.-L. Choi, J. McChesney, and N. Buckley Induction with sevoflurane-remifentanil is comparable to propofol-fentanyl-rocuronium in PONV after laparoscopic surgery: [L'induction avec sevoflurane-remifentanil ou propofol-fentanyl rocuronium est similaire quant aux NVPO en chirurgie laparoscopique] Can J Anesth, August 1, 2004; 51(7): 660 - 667. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. S. Joo and W. J. Perks Sevoflurane Versus Propofol for Anesthetic Induction: A Meta-Analysis Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2000; 91(1): 213 - 219. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. H. Hoerauf, T. Wallner, O. Akca, R. Taslimi, and D. I. Sessler Exposure to Sevoflurane and Nitrous Oxide During Four Different Methods of Anesthetic Induction Anesth. Analg., April 1, 1999; 88(4): 925 - 925. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
|