H Murdoch1, M Scrutton, C H Laxton. 1. Department of Anaesthesia, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK. henrymurdoch@hotmail.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A national survey of current practice and preferred drug choices for both induction and maintenance of general anaesthesia for caesarean section was undertaken. METHODS: Following approval by the Obstetric Anaesthetists' Association, all UK consultant members were invited to respond to an electronic survey. RESULTS: The response rate was 56% (691/1228). Ninety-three percent of respondents use thiopental for induction: 58% (15% definitely and 44% probably) would support a change to propofol for induction. Thiopental was used in most cases for historical reasons (37%) or to reduce awareness (31%); other considerations included a clear end-point, dose predictability, cardiovascular stability, effects on the baby and drug licence concerns. Fifty-seven percent indicated that their trainees were encouraged to use thiopental for non-obstetric anaesthesia. Fifteen percent of respondents use opioids during rapid-sequence induction. Eighty-five percent use nitrous oxide; 53% of respondents use sevoflurane (51.6%) or desflurane (1.6%) for maintenance of anaesthesia, and this would increase to over 80% if financial constraints were removed. CONCLUSION: Our survey suggests that while thiopental remains the induction agent of choice in the UK, a reasonable body of medical opinion would support a change to propofol for induction. This is reassuring as thiopental becomes more difficult and expensive to obtain.
BACKGROUND: A national survey of current practice and preferred drug choices for both induction and maintenance of general anaesthesia for caesarean section was undertaken. METHODS: Following approval by the Obstetric Anaesthetists' Association, all UK consultant members were invited to respond to an electronic survey. RESULTS: The response rate was 56% (691/1228). Ninety-three percent of respondents use thiopental for induction: 58% (15% definitely and 44% probably) would support a change to propofol for induction. Thiopental was used in most cases for historical reasons (37%) or to reduce awareness (31%); other considerations included a clear end-point, dose predictability, cardiovascular stability, effects on the baby and drug licence concerns. Fifty-seven percent indicated that their trainees were encouraged to use thiopental for non-obstetric anaesthesia. Fifteen percent of respondents use opioids during rapid-sequence induction. Eighty-five percent use nitrous oxide; 53% of respondents use sevoflurane (51.6%) or desflurane (1.6%) for maintenance of anaesthesia, and this would increase to over 80% if financial constraints were removed. CONCLUSION: Our survey suggests that while thiopental remains the induction agent of choice in the UK, a reasonable body of medical opinion would support a change to propofol for induction. This is reassuring as thiopental becomes more difficult and expensive to obtain.