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 (11)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Keller, C.
Right arrow Articles by Brimacombe, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Keller, C.
Right arrow Articles by Brimacombe, J. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol 80, Issue 3 332-336, Copyright © 1998 by The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

CLINICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Positive pressure ventilation with the laryngeal mask airway in non- paralysed patients: comparison of sevoflurane and propofol maintenance techniques

C. Keller, H. J. Sparr and J. R. Brimacombe
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Leopold-Franzens University, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria; University of Queensland, Cairns Base Hospital, Cairns 4870, Australia

We have compared anaesthetic maintenance and emergence characteristics of propofol and sevoflurane with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) at commonly used doses in 185 ASA I-II patients, in a randomized, prospective study. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol 2.5-3.5 mg kg- 1 and fentanyl 1-3 micrograms kg-1. Neuromuscular blocking agents were not used. All patients underwent positive pressure ventilation (PPV) with tidal volumes of 6-8 ml kg-1 to maintain normal end-tidal carbon dioxide concentration. Anaesthesia was maintained with 66% nitrous oxide in oxygen and infusion of propofol 6 or 8 mg kg-1 h-1, or 1% or 1.5% end-tidal sevoflurane. There were no failed insertion attempts and adequate ventilation was achieved in all patients. During emergence, there was a greater incidence of excitatory phenomena with 1% and 1.5% sevoflurane (95% confidence intervals (CI) 4-19%) compared with propofol (95% CI 0-4%). Sevoflurane 1.0% (95% CI 37-71%) was associated with the greatest overall incidence of respiratory and haemodynamic problems. This was significantly higher compared with propofol 6 mg kg- 1 h-1 (95% CI 19-36%). Shorter times to LMA removal were observed with 1% and 1.5% sevoflurane compared with propofol (P < 0.0002). Postoperative problems did not differ between groups. We conclude that propofol 6-8 mg kg-1 h-1 and 1.5% sevoflurane were suitable for maintenance of anaesthesia for musculoskeletal surgery in non-paralysed ASA I-II patients undergoing PPV with the LMA. Emergence was more rapid with sevoflurane, but was associated with more excitatory phenomena.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




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.