Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (38)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LINDGREN, L.
Right arrow Articles by NEUVONEN, P. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by LINDGREN, L.
Right arrow Articles by NEUVONEN, P. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 1993, Vol. 70, No. 3 306-310
© 1993 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

research-article

HAEMODYNAMIC AND CATECHOLAMINE RESPONSES TO INDUCTION OF ANAESTHESIA AND TRACHEAL INTUBATION: COMPARISON BETWEEN PROPOFOL AND THIOPENTONE

L. LINDGREN, M.D., PH.D, A. YLI-HANKALA, M.D., PH.D, T. RANDELL, M.D., PH.D, M. KIRVELÄ, M.D, M. SCHEININ, M.D., PH.D and P. J. NEUVONEN, M.D., PH.D

Department of Anaesthesia, IV Department of Surgery, University Central Hospital Kasarmikatu 11-13, SF-00130, Helsinki 13, Finland
Department of Pharmacology, University of Turku Finland

Correspondence to L.L.

We have studied the haemodynamic changes, QT intervals and catecholamine responses to induction of anaesthesia and tracheal intubation in 24 ASA I patients allocated randomly to receive either pro-pofol 2.5 mg kg-1 or thiopentone 5 mg kg-1 over 60 s. After disappearance of the eyelash reflex, the lungs were ventilated with 100% oxygen for 3 min. The trachea was intubated after administration of vecuronium. With thiopentone, heart rate (HR) was greater than with propofol before intubation (P < 0.05). During induction, systolic (SAP) and diastolic arterial pressure (DAP) decreased more with propofol than with thiopentone. The QT interval was prolonged only during induction with thiopentone. In both groups, HR, SAP, DAP and the QT were increased in response to intubation (P < 0.001). The SAP and QT interval responses to intubation were significantly greater with thiopentone than with propofol (P < 0.05). One patient in the thiopentone group with a significantly prolonged QT interval had episodes of bigeminy and ventricular tachycardia. In both groups, concentrations of noradrenaline in mixed venous plasma increased after intubation (P < 0.001). Concentrations of adrenaline increased after intubation only in the thiopentone group (P < 0.001). (Br. J. Anaesth. 1993; 70: 306–310)


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
I. Rundshagen, T. Schroder, L. S. Prichep, E. R. John, and W. J. Kox
Changes in cortical electrical activity during induction of anaesthesia with thiopental/fentanyl and tracheal intubation: a quantitative electroencephalographic analysis
Br. J. Anaesth., January 1, 2004; 92(1): 33 - 38.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
S. T. Mustola, G. A. Baer, J. K. Toivonen, A. Salomaki, M. Scheinin, H. Huhtala, P. Laippala, and V. Jantti
Electroencephalographic Burst Suppression Versus Loss of Reflexes Anesthesia with Propofol or Thiopental: Differences of Variance in the Catecholamine and Cardiovascular Response to Tracheal Intubation
Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2003; 97(4): 1040 - 1045.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
T. Schricker, F. Carli, M. Schreiber, U. Wachter, W. Geisser, R. Lattermann, and M. Georgieff
Propofol/Sufentanil Anesthesia Suppresses the Metabolic and Endocrine Response During, Not After, Lower Abdominal Surgery
Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2000; 90(2): 450 - 450.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.