JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (36) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Philip, B. K. Articles by Philip, J. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Philip, B. K. Articles by Philip, J. H.

---

AMBULATORY ANESTHESIA

Comparison of Vital Capacity Induction with Sevoflurane to Intravenous Induction with Propofol for Adult Ambulatory Anesthesia

Department of Anesthesia, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Beverly K. Philip, MD, Department of Anesthesia, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St., Boston, MA 02115. Address e-mail to bphilip{at}zeus.bwh .harvard.edu.

We compared vital capacity inhaled induction (VC) with sevoflurane with IV induction with propofol for adult ambulatory anesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 8% sevoflurane in 75% N₂O/O₂ from a primed circuit (VC, 32 patients) or propofol 2-mg/kg bolus (IV, 24 patients). Times to loss of consciousness (response to command) and induction side effects (airway, hemodynamic, motor) were assessed. Anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane/N₂O via a face mask for both groups. At the end of surgery, recovery times were measured and psychomotor function tests were performed. Patients were also asked to assess the quality of their anesthesia. Of the VC patients, 59% lost responsiveness in one breath, taking 39 ± 3 s. All VC patients completed the induction, and all measures of induction time were significantly shorter for VC than for IV. Induction side effects were different in the two groups (cough and hiccough for VC versus movement and blood pressure changes for IV), but overall incidences were similar. There were no significant differences in any index of early or intermediate recovery. Mild nausea occurred more often with VC, but no antiemetics were needed, and discharge was not delayed. Patients' assessments of the quality of induction or wake up were not significantly different between VC and IV. Thus, VC induction with sevoflurane is an acceptable alternative to propofol IV induction of general anesthesia for adult ambulatory surgical patients.

Implications: A vital capacity induction with sevoflurane produced a faster loss of consciousness and had side effects, recovery times, and patient satisfaction similar to that of a propofol induction in adults undergoing ambulatory surgery.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Y. Oda, S. Toriyama, K. Tanaka, T. Matsuura, N. Hamaoka, M. Morino, and A. Asada The Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Electrocorticography in Patients with Temporal Lobe Epilepsy Under Sevoflurane Anesthesia Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2007; 105(5): 1272 - 1277. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]

				D. A. Kirkbride, J. L. Parker, G. D. Williams, and D. J. Buggy Induction of Anesthesia in the Elderly Ambulatory Patient: A Double-Blinded Comparison of Propofol and Sevoflurane Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2001; 93(5): 1185 - 1187. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. O'Shea, S. Moultrie, and G. B. Drummond Influence of nitrous oxide on induction of anaesthesia with sevoflurane Br. J. Anaesth., August 1, 2001; 87(2): 286 - 288. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. L. Strickland and G. B. Drummond* Comparison of pattern of breathing with other measures of induction of anaesthesia, using propofol, methohexital, and sevoflurane{{dagger}} Br. J. Anaesth., May 1, 2001; 86(5): 639 - 644. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M.-J. Colas, J.-P. Tetrault, L. Dumais, P. Truong, Y. Claprood, and R. Martin The SiBITM Connector: A New Medical Device to Facilitate Preoxygenation and Reduce Waste Anesthetic Gases During Inhaled Induction with Sevoflurane Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2000; 91(6): 1555 - 1559. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Tanaka, T. Kimura, T. Goyagi, K. Ogasawara, R. Nitta, and T. Nishikawa Evaluating Hemodynamic and T Wave Criteria of Simulated Intravascular Test Doses Using Bupivacaine or Isoproterenol in Anesthetized Children Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2000; 91(3): 567 - 572. [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]

Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999