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 ISI Web of Science
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 (18)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wu, RSC.
Right arrow Articles by Bishop, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wu, RSC.
Right arrow Articles by Bishop, M. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol 77, Issue 6 735-738, Copyright © 1996 by The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

CLINICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Comparative effects of thiopentone and propofol on respiratory resistance after tracheal intubation

RSC. Wu, K. C. Wu, DCW. Sum and M. J. Bishop
Department of Anaesthesiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung College of Medicine and Technology, No. 5 Fushing Street, Kweishan, Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan, Republic of China; Department of Anaesthesia/OR Services, Seattle VAMC 112A, 1660 South Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108, USA

To compare the effects of propofol and thiopentone on tracheal intubation-induced bronchoconstriction, 37 patients were allocated randomly to anaesthesia with either thiopentone 4 mg kg-1 followed by a 15-mg kg-1 h-1 continuous infusion or propofol 3 mg kg-1 followed by a 9-mg kg-1 h-1 continuous infusion. Intubation was facilitated by vecuronium 0.1-0.2 mg kg-1. Respiratory system resistance (Rrs) was measured by a CP-100 pulmonary function monitor, 5 min after intubation. The 5-min post-intubation Rrs values were significantly lower in the propofol group (8.5 (SD 1.5) cm H2O litre-1 S-1) than in the thiopentone group (10.9 (3.2) cm H2O litre-1 S-1). Thirty minutes after commencing isoflurane-nitrous oxide anaesthesia, Rrs declined by 17.5 (SEM 3.6)% from baseline in the thiopentone group, but by only 1.6 (2.6)% in the propofol group. We conclude that the dose of propofol administered provided more protection against tracheal intubation- induced bronchoconstriction than an induction dose of thiopentone.
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
A. Peratoner, C. S. Nascimento, M. C. E. Santana, R. A. Cadete, E. M. Negri, A. Gullo, P. R. M. Rocco, and W. A. Zin
Effects of propofol on respiratory mechanic and lung histology in normal rats
Br. J. Anaesth., May 1, 2004; 92(5): 737 - 740.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
S. Kabara, K. Hirota, H. Yoshioka, T. Kudo, H. Ishihara, and A. Matsuki
Differential effects of thiopental on methacholine- and serotonin-induced bronchoconstriction in dogs{dagger}
Br. J. Anaesth., September 1, 2003; 91(3): 379 - 384.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
J.-i. Hattori, N. Fujimura, N. Kanaya, K. Okazaki, and A. Namiki
Bronchospasm Induced by Propofol in a Patient with Sick House Syndrome
Anesth. Analg., January 1, 2003; 96(1): 163 - 164.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
T. Nishiyama and K. Hanaoka
Propofol-Induced Bronchoconstriction: Two Case Reports
Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2001; 93(3): 645 - 646.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
S. Kabara, K. Hirota, E. Hashiba, H. Yoshioka, T. Kudo, T. Sato, and A. Matsuki
Comparison of relaxant effects of propofol on methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction in dogs with and without vagotomy
Br. J. Anaesth., January 1, 2001; 86(2): 249 - 253.
[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.