• N Weksler, V Rozentsveig, A Tarnoploski, and G M Gurman.
• Division of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of the Health Sciences, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer- Sheva, Israel. weksler@bgumail.bgu.ac.il
• J Clin Anesth. 2001 Aug 1; 13 (5): 321-4.

Study ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of four commercial propofol solutions marketed in Israel.DesignProspective, randomized, double-blind study.SettingUniversity-affiliated medical center.Patients120 ASA physical status I and II nullipara patients undergoing dilatation and curettage for interrupted pregnancy.InterventionsPatients were randomized into four groups of 30 patients each. Group 1 was anesthetized with Diprivan (AstraZeneca, UK), group 2 with Recofol (Leiras Oy, Finland), group 3 with Propofol (Abbott), and group 4 with Diprofol (Taro, Israel).Measurements And Main ResultsThe four study groups were similar in mean age and weight. There were no statistically significant differences in the administered doses, quality of anesthesia, recovery time, or adverse effects among the four groups.ConclusionsDiprivan, Recofol, Diprofol, and Propofol Abbott are equally effective as anesthesia induction drugs for dilation and curettage, with a similar incidence of adverse effects. Because cost limitations have become a significant factor in medical care, the choice of drug in this group should be based solely on cost considerations.

16 keywords...

hide…