We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
[Intravenous anesthesia using propofol during lengthy neurosurgical interventions].
OBJECTIVE: To compare the hemodynamic stability and time to recovery of consciousness after long-duration (> 3 h) neurosurgery with 2 anesthetic protocols: total intravenous anesthesia with propofol as the single hypnotic agent and inhalational anesthesia with isoflurane.
PATIENTS AND METHOD: We studied 58 middle-aged patients (range 40-50 years) scheduled for intracranial surgery. The patients, who all scored over 13 on the Glasgow coma scale before surgery, were randomly divided into two groups: 27 in group I received isoflurane and 31 in group II received propofol. Anesthetic induction was with sodium thiopental 4 mg/kg i.v. in group I and with propofol 2.5 mg/kg i.v. in group II. Both groups then received fentanyl 2 micrograms/kg i.v., lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg i.v. and vecuronium 0.2 mg/kg i.v. Before placement of the Mayfield head grip, with clamps, or before start of surgery in those cases in which the head grip was not used, all patients were given a 3 micrograms/kg i.v. dose of fentanyl. Hypnosis was maintained in group I with concentrations of isoflurane that were adequate for keeping minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) between 0.6 and 1. In group II maintenance was by continuous i.v. perfusion of propofol 10 mg/kg/h for 30 min., followed by 8 mg/kg/h for 30 min. and 6 mg/kg/h until the end of surgery. N2O was never used.
RESULTS: After induction systolic and mean arterial pressures (SAP and MAP) decreased significantly in both groups in comparison with baseline values (SAP: 113.1 +/- 30.0 vs. 140.9 +/- 27.08 mmHg in group I and 109.6 +/- 22.1 vs. 135.0 +/- 19.7 mmHg in group II; MAP: 76.8 +/- 18.7 vs. 95.6 +/- 17.0 mmHg in group I and 74.9 +/- 13.2 vs. 93.4 +/- 13.7 mmHg in group II). The patients in group II showed less tendency to develop arterial hypertension in response to orotracheal intubation (SAP and MAP at the moment of intubation: 156.4 +/- 33.7 and 104.6 +/- 18.1 mmHg, respectively, in group I as compared to 135.1 +/- 31.2 and 93.5 +/- 22.4 mmHg in group II; p < 0.05 between the 2 groups and p < 0.05 for the baseline and intubation pressures in group I). Time to recovery of effective, spontaneous breathing was shorter in group I (5.9 +/- 4.9 and 8.9 +/- 5.7 min.) than in group II (10.9 +/- 9.6 and 13.0 +/- 7.4 min.) and tubes could be extracted earlier from patients in the isoflurane group (10.4 +/- 6.1 min. vs. 17.6 +/- 12.8 min.; p < 0.01). We found no differences between the 2 groups for time until eye opening, response to verbal orders or time until start of spontaneous movement.
CONCLUSIONS: Propofol can be considered an alternative to the traditional thiopental-isoflurane sequence in neurosurgery lasting more than 3 h. In our study the hypertensive response to the stimulus of orotracheal intubation was lower in the propofol group than in the thiopental-isoflurane group.
PATIENTS AND METHOD: We studied 58 middle-aged patients (range 40-50 years) scheduled for intracranial surgery. The patients, who all scored over 13 on the Glasgow coma scale before surgery, were randomly divided into two groups: 27 in group I received isoflurane and 31 in group II received propofol. Anesthetic induction was with sodium thiopental 4 mg/kg i.v. in group I and with propofol 2.5 mg/kg i.v. in group II. Both groups then received fentanyl 2 micrograms/kg i.v., lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg i.v. and vecuronium 0.2 mg/kg i.v. Before placement of the Mayfield head grip, with clamps, or before start of surgery in those cases in which the head grip was not used, all patients were given a 3 micrograms/kg i.v. dose of fentanyl. Hypnosis was maintained in group I with concentrations of isoflurane that were adequate for keeping minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) between 0.6 and 1. In group II maintenance was by continuous i.v. perfusion of propofol 10 mg/kg/h for 30 min., followed by 8 mg/kg/h for 30 min. and 6 mg/kg/h until the end of surgery. N2O was never used.
RESULTS: After induction systolic and mean arterial pressures (SAP and MAP) decreased significantly in both groups in comparison with baseline values (SAP: 113.1 +/- 30.0 vs. 140.9 +/- 27.08 mmHg in group I and 109.6 +/- 22.1 vs. 135.0 +/- 19.7 mmHg in group II; MAP: 76.8 +/- 18.7 vs. 95.6 +/- 17.0 mmHg in group I and 74.9 +/- 13.2 vs. 93.4 +/- 13.7 mmHg in group II). The patients in group II showed less tendency to develop arterial hypertension in response to orotracheal intubation (SAP and MAP at the moment of intubation: 156.4 +/- 33.7 and 104.6 +/- 18.1 mmHg, respectively, in group I as compared to 135.1 +/- 31.2 and 93.5 +/- 22.4 mmHg in group II; p < 0.05 between the 2 groups and p < 0.05 for the baseline and intubation pressures in group I). Time to recovery of effective, spontaneous breathing was shorter in group I (5.9 +/- 4.9 and 8.9 +/- 5.7 min.) than in group II (10.9 +/- 9.6 and 13.0 +/- 7.4 min.) and tubes could be extracted earlier from patients in the isoflurane group (10.4 +/- 6.1 min. vs. 17.6 +/- 12.8 min.; p < 0.01). We found no differences between the 2 groups for time until eye opening, response to verbal orders or time until start of spontaneous movement.
CONCLUSIONS: Propofol can be considered an alternative to the traditional thiopental-isoflurane sequence in neurosurgery lasting more than 3 h. In our study the hypertensive response to the stimulus of orotracheal intubation was lower in the propofol group than in the thiopental-isoflurane group.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app