Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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 Watson, K. R.
Right arrow Articles by Shah, M. V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Watson, K. R.
Right arrow Articles by Shah, M. V.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2000, Vol. 85, No. 4 541-546
© 2000 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

Clinical comparison of ‘single agent’ anaesthesia with sevoflurane versus target controlled infusion of propofol

K. R. Watson and M. V. Shah*

Department of Anaesthetics, The General Infirmary at Leeds, Great George Street, Leeds LS1 3EX, UK*Corresponding author

The introduction of total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) and the use of volatile induction/maintenance anaesthesia (VIMA) has led to the rediscovery of ‘single agent’ anaesthesia, eliminating the transition phase from induction to maintenance. We compared quality, patient acceptability and cost of TIVA using target control infusion (TCI) with propofol and VIMA with sevoflurane. Forty patients undergoing spinal surgery of 1–3 h were assigned to one of two groups. Group I received propofol–air–oxygen for induction followed by propofol–air–oxygen for maintenance. Group II received 8% sevoflurane–oxygen for induction and sevoflurane–oxygen–nitrous oxide for maintenance. Propofol had a significantly faster mean (SD) induction time (67 (20) s) than sevoflurane (97 (38) s) but was associated with double the incidence of involuntary movements. Although not significant, twice the number of interventions by the anaesthetist were required to maintain an adequate level of anaesthesia in the sevoflurane group. Emergence times, characteristics, postoperative nausea, vomiting and pain were unaffected by the anaesthetic technique. However, a more predictable emergence time was found following sevoflurane. Cardiovascular stability was good and comparable in both groups. The majority of patients found either technique acceptable and would choose the same anaesthetic again. Induction and maintenance was substantially cheaper with sevoflurane (£28.06) compared with propofol (£41.43).

Br J Anaesth 2000; 85: 541–6


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
Mol. Pharmacol.Home page
C. Grasshoff, R. Jurd, U. Rudolph, and B. Antkowiak
Modulation of Presynaptic beta3-Containing GABAA Receptors Limits the Immobilizing Actions of GABAergic Anesthetics
Mol. Pharmacol., September 1, 2007; 72(3): 780 - 787.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br J AnaesthHome page
C. K. Hofer, A. Zollinger, S. Buchi, R. Klaghofer, D. Serafino, S. Buhlmann, C. Buddeberg, T. Pasch, and D. R. Spahn
Patient well-being after general anaesthesia: a prospective, randomized, controlled multi-centre trial comparing intravenous and inhalation anaesthesia
Br. J. Anaesth., November 1, 2003; 91(5): 631 - 637.
[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.