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 (8)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kodaka, M.
Right arrow Articles by Miyao, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kodaka, M.
Right arrow Articles by Miyao, H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2004, Vol. 92, No. 2 242-245
© 2004 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

Clinical Investigations

Predicted values of propofol EC50 and sevoflurane concentration for insertion of laryngeal mask ClassicTM and ProSealTM

M. Kodaka*, Y. Okamoto, K. Koyama and H. Miyao

Department of Anesthesiology, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical School, 1981, Tsujido-cho, Kamoda, Kawagoe, Saitama 350–8550, Japan

*Corresponding author. E-mail:kmkodaka@cb3.so-net.ne.jp

Background. A new laryngeal mask airway, the ProSealTM (PLMA), is said to be more difficult to insert than the laryngeal mask airway ClassicTM (CLMA) using propofol anaesthesia. Therefore, we expected a greater dose of propofol and sevoflurane to be required to insert the PLMA compared with the CLMA. We determined the effective concentration 50% (EC50) of propofol and end-tidal sevoflurane to allow insertion of the PLMA and the CLMA.

Methods. Seventy-six elective female patients (aged 20–60 yr and ASA I–II) were randomly assigned to one of four groups. Either a PLMA or a CLMA was inserted using either propofol target controlled infusion or sevoflurane. Both propofol and sevoflurane targets were determined with a modified Dixon’s up-and-down method. After equilibration between the predetermined blood and effect site concentrations, which had been held steady for more than 10 min, LMA insertion was attempted without neuromuscular block.

Results. The predicted EC50CLMA and EC50PLMA for propofol were 3.14 (0.33) and 4.32 (0.67) µg ml–1. E'CLMA and E'PLMA of sevoflurane (mean (SD)) were 2.36 (0.22) and 2.82 (0.45)% (P<0.01 and 0.05, respectively).

Conclusions. The estimated concentration of propofol and the sevoflurane concentration needed to allow insertion of the ProSealTM are respectively 38 and 20% greater than those needed for insertion of the Classic LMA.

Br J Anaesth 2004; 92: 242–5


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
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
Z. Xu, F. Liu, Y. Yue, T. Ye, B. Zhang, M. Zuo, M. Xu, R. Hao, Y. Xu, N. Yang, et al.
C50 for Propofol-Remifentanil Target-Controlled Infusion and Bispectral Index at Loss of Consciousness and Response to Painful Stimulus in Chinese Patients: A Multicenter Clinical Trial
Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2009; 108(2): 478 - 483.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
M. Iannuzzi, E. Iannuzzi, F. Rossi, L. Berrino, and M. Chiefari
Relationship between Bispectral Index, electroencephalographic state entropy and effect-site EC50 for propofol at different clinical endpoints
Br. J. Anaesth., April 1, 2005; 94(4): 492 - 495.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
M. Filipovic, J. Wang, I. Michaux, P. Hunziker, K. Skarvan, and M. D. Seeberger
Effects of halothane, sevoflurane and propofol on left ventricular diastolic function in humans during spontaneous and mechanical ventilation
Br. J. Anaesth., February 1, 2005; 94(2): 186 - 192.
[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.