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 (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pellégrini, M.
Right arrow Articles by Tassonyi, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pellégrini, M.
Right arrow Articles by Tassonyi, E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2003, Vol. 90, No. 3 375-377
© 2003 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

Short Communications

Propofol 1% versus propofol 2% in children undergoing minor ENT surgery

M. Pellégrini*,1, C. Lysakowski1, L. Dumont1, A. Borgeat2 and E. Tassonyi1

1 Division of Anaesthesiology, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pharmacology and Surgical Intensive Care, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. 2 University Clinic, Balgrist Hospital, Zürich, Switzerland

Corresponding author: Pediatric Anaesthesia, Hôpital des Enfants, Geneva University Hospitals, Rue Willy Donze 6, CH-1205 Genève 4, Switzerland. E-mail: michel.pellegrini@hcuge.ch

Background. The induction characteristics of propofol 1% and 2% were compared in children undergoing ENT surgery, in a prospective, randomized, double-blind study.

Methods. One hundred and eight children received propofol 1% (n=55) or 2% (n=53) for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia. For induction, propofol 4 mg kg–1 was injected at a constant rate (1200 ml h–1), supplemented with alfentanil. Intubating conditions without the use of a neuromuscular blocking agent were scored.

Results. Pain on injection occurred in 9% and 21% of patients after propofol 1% and 2%, respectively (P=0.09). Loss of consciousness was more rapid with propofol 2% compared with propofol 1% (47 s vs 54 s; P=0.02). Spontaneous movements during induction occurred in 22% and 34% (P=0.18), and intubating conditions were satisfactory in 87% and 96% (P=0.19) of children receiving propofol 1% or 2%, respectively. There were no differences between the two groups in respect of haemodynamic changes or adverse events.

Conclusions. For the end-points tested, propofol 1% and propofol 2% are similar for induction of anaesthesia in children undergoing minor ENT surgery.

Br J Anaesth 2003: 90: 375–7


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
Y. Nyman, K. Von Hofsten, C. Palm, S. Eksborg, and P. A. Lonnqvist
Etomidate-(R)Lipuro is associated with considerably less injection pain in children compared with propofol with added lidocaine
Br. J. Anaesth., October 1, 2006; 97(4): 536 - 539.
[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.