BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The target effect-site concentration of propofol to insert a laryngeal mask airway was recently reported as almost 5 microg mL(-1). The present study aimed to determine the target effect-site concentration with target-controlled infusion of propofol to place classical larnygeal mask airway or current laryngeal tube in adult patients. METHODS: We included 40 patients scheduled for short gynaecological and radiological procedures under general anaesthesia in a randomized, double-blind manner using the Dixon's up-and-down statistical method. Monitoring included standard cardiorespiratory monitors, and bispectral index monitoring was used for all patients. Anaesthesia was conducted with a target-controlled infusion system: Diprifusor. The initial target plasma concentration of propofol was 5 microg mL(-1), and was changed stepwise by 0.5 microg mL(-1) increments according to Dixon's up-and-down method. Criteria for acceptable insertion were: Muzi's score < or = 2, and mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate or bispectral index variation <20% the baseline values. RESULTS: Target effect-site concentration of propofol required to insert laryngeal tube was 6.3 +/- 0.3 microg mL(-1) with Dixon method and ED50 was 6.1 microg mL(-1) (5.9-6.4) with logistic regression method. In the case of larnygeal mask airway they were 7.3 +/- 0.2 microg mL(-1) (Dixon method) and 7.3 microg mL(-1) (7.1-7.5; with logistic regression) respectively (P < 0.05). ED95 (logistic regression) was 6.8 microg mL(-1) (5.9-7.6) for laryngeal tube and 7.7 microg mL(-1) (7.3-8.0) for larnygeal mask airway (P < 0.05). Haemodynamic incidents were 55% in the larnygeal mask airway group vs. 30% in the laryngeal tube group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The target effect-site concentration of propofol for insertion of laryngeal tube was lower than for larnygeal mask airway (P < 0.05), with a consequent reduction of the propofol induced haemodynamic side-effects.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The target effect-site concentration of propofol to insert a laryngeal mask airway was recently reported as almost 5 microg mL(-1). The present study aimed to determine the target effect-site concentration with target-controlled infusion of propofol to place classical larnygeal mask airway or current laryngeal tube in adult patients. METHODS: We included 40 patients scheduled for short gynaecological and radiological procedures under general anaesthesia in a randomized, double-blind manner using the Dixon's up-and-down statistical method. Monitoring included standard cardiorespiratory monitors, and bispectral index monitoring was used for all patients. Anaesthesia was conducted with a target-controlled infusion system: Diprifusor. The initial target plasma concentration of propofol was 5 microg mL(-1), and was changed stepwise by 0.5 microg mL(-1) increments according to Dixon's up-and-down method. Criteria for acceptable insertion were: Muzi's score < or = 2, and mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate or bispectral index variation <20% the baseline values. RESULTS: Target effect-site concentration of propofol required to insert laryngeal tube was 6.3 +/- 0.3 microg mL(-1) with Dixon method and ED50 was 6.1 microg mL(-1) (5.9-6.4) with logistic regression method. In the case of larnygeal mask airway they were 7.3 +/- 0.2 microg mL(-1) (Dixon method) and 7.3 microg mL(-1) (7.1-7.5; with logistic regression) respectively (P < 0.05). ED95 (logistic regression) was 6.8 microg mL(-1) (5.9-7.6) for laryngeal tube and 7.7 microg mL(-1) (7.3-8.0) for larnygeal mask airway (P < 0.05). Haemodynamic incidents were 55% in the larnygeal mask airway group vs. 30% in the laryngeal tube group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The target effect-site concentration of propofol for insertion of laryngeal tube was lower than for larnygeal mask airway (P < 0.05), with a consequent reduction of the propofol induced haemodynamic side-effects.
Authors: Sebastian G Russo; Stephan Cremer; Tamara Galli; Christoph Eich; Anselm Bräuer; Thomas A Crozier; Martin Bauer; Micha Strack Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2012-08-07 Impact factor: 2.217