Literature DB >> 9706922

Comparison of desflurane with isoflurane or propofol in spontaneously breathing ambulatory patients.

J Ashworth1, I Smith.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Desflurane is a potentially useful anesthetic for ambulatory surgery, but it has had limited evaluation in spontaneously breathing patients. After the induction of anesthesia with propofol and laryngeal mask insertion, 90 patients were randomized to receive isoflurane (0.25%-1%), propofol (50-200 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)), or desflurane (1.4%-6%) for anesthetic maintenance. Respiratory complications were uncommon; only six patients coughed (three who received isoflurane, one who received propofol, and two who received desflurane), and no anesthetic produced significant respiratory depression. Purposeful movement was significantly more common with propofol (19 patients; 63%) compared with isoflurane (7 patients; 23%) or desflurane (2 patients; 6.7%), but no patient had recall. Emergence times were similar in the isoflurane, propofol, and desflurane groups (5.1 +/- 2.3, 5.6 +/- 3.1, and 4.4 +/- 1.4 min, respectively). Later recovery end points and pain and sedation visual analog scale scores did not differ among groups. Overall, 85 patients (94%) were free from postoperative nausea and vomiting. Desflurane produced few respiratory complications in spontaneously breathing ambulatory patients but offered no improvement in emergence or recovery compared with isoflurane. Propofol also did not reduce recovery times or side effects; however, it was more difficult to maintain an adequate depth of anesthesia. We conclude that neither desflurane nor propofol offered any major advantages over the older anesthetic, isoflurane, under the conditions of our study. IMPLICATIONS: The new inhaled anesthetic desflurane is acceptable in spontaneously breathing outpatients despite its known ability to irritate the airway. The i.v. anesthetic propofol was associated with more patient movement (without awareness) during surgery. Neither anesthetic conferred any clinically significant advantages over the older inhaled drug, isoflurane.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9706922     DOI: 10.1097/00000539-199808000-00014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesth Analg        ISSN: 0003-2999            Impact factor:   5.108


  7 in total

Review 1.  Clinical and economic factors important to anaesthetic choice for day-case surgery.

Authors:  E I Eger; P F White; M S Bogetz
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Differential effects of isoflurane and propofol on upper airway dilator muscle activity and breathing.

Authors:  Matthias Eikermann; Atul Malhotra; Philipp Fassbender; Sebastian Zaremba; Amy S Jordan; Shiva Gautam; David P White; Nancy L Chamberlin
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 7.892

Review 3.  Anaesthetic interventions for prevention of awareness during surgery.

Authors:  Anthony G Messina; Michael Wang; Marshall J Ward; Chase C Wilker; Brett B Smith; Daniel P Vezina; Nathan Leon Pace
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-10-18

Review 4.  Airway reactions and emergence times in general laryngeal mask airway anaesthesia: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ana Stevanovic; Rolf Rossaint; Harald G Fritz; Gebhard Froeba; Joern Heine; Friedrich K Puehringer; Peter H Tonner; Mark Coburn
Journal:  Eur J Anaesthesiol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.330

5.  Validity and reliability of quality of recovery-35 Thai version: a prospective questionnaire-based study.

Authors:  Siriporn Pitimana-Aree; Suthipol Udompanthurak; Saowaphak Lapmahapaisan; Matula Tareerath; Aungsumat Wangdee
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 2.217

6.  Comparison of Anesthesia-Controlled Operating Room Time between Propofol-Based Total Intravenous Anesthesia and Desflurane Anesthesia in Open Colorectal Surgery: A Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Wei-Hung Chan; Meei-Shyuan Lee; Chin Lin; Chang-Chieh Wu; Hou-Chuan Lai; Shun-Ming Chan; Chueng-He Lu; Chen-Hwan Cherng; Zhi-Fu Wu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-25       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Emergence times and airway reactions during general anaesthesia with remifentanil and a laryngeal mask airway: A multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Ana Kowark; Rolf Rossaint; Friedrich Pühringer; András P Keszei; Harald Fritz; Gebhard Fröba; Christopher Rex; Hansjörg Haas; Volker Otto; Mark Coburn
Journal:  Eur J Anaesthesiol       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 4.330

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.