Articles: propofol.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
Pain on injection of propofol. Methods of alleviation.
A controlled randomised double-blind design was used to study the effect of lignocaine on the pain produced by intravenous injection of propofol. Patients received a 2-ml pretreatment solution with temporary venous occlusion, followed by an induction solution. ⋯ There were no significant differences in the incidence of pain among the groups which received lignocaine as pretreatment and the groups which received lignocaine mixed with propofol. Sixty-eight percent of patients who experienced pain or discomfort recalled it in the postoperative period.
-
Comparative Study Clinical Trial Controlled Clinical Trial
Atropine-induced heart rate changes: a comparison between midazolam-fentanyl-propofol-N2O and midazolam-fentanyl-thiopentone-enflurane-N2O anaesthesia.
Atropine-induced heart rate (HR) changes were studied in 19 patients (ASA physical status I) during anaesthesia-maintained predominantly with propofol-N2O or thiopentone-enflurane-N2O. Ten patients (Group A) received midazolam (0.07 mg.kg-1), fentanyl (1 microgram.kg-1), propofol (2 mg.kg-1) and succinylcholine (1 mg.kg-1). Following tracheal intubation, anaesthesia was maintained with propofol (6 mg.kg-1.hr-1), N2O (67 per cent) and O2 (33 per cent). ⋯ Ten minutes after tracheal intubation, incremental doses of atropine (equivalent cumulative doses: 1.8, 3.6, 7.2, 14.4, 28.8 micrograms.kg-1) were administered at two-minute intervals and HR responses calculated during the last 45 sec of each intervening period. No differences were observed between the groups following 1.8 and 3.6 micrograms.kg-1 atropine, but propofol-N2O anaesthesia was associated with reduced responses (P less than 0.01) following 7.2, 14.4 and 28.8 micrograms.kg-1 atropine. These results suggest that there is a predominance of parasympathetic influences during propofol-N2O anaesthesia compared with thiopentone-enflurane-N2O anaesthesia.
-
Minerva anestesiologica · May 1990
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial[Total intravenous anesthesia with propofol vs. propofol/N2O anesthesia].
The authors have compared two groups of 31 patients each, undergone an anaesthesia with propofol-O2/N2O (group I) and propofol-O2/air (group II). The average anaesthetic dosage and the neuromuscular recovery time have been valued, keeping constant the dose of analgesic. The average consumption of propofol (except the inductive dose of 2 mg/kg) was 7.41 +/- 1.71 mg/kg/h in group I, and 7.47 +/- 1.76 in group II (p = 0.88; not significant) and the neuromuscular recovery time 56.12 +/- 34.55 m' and 49.48 +/- 40.50 m' respectively (p = 0.53; not significant). ⋯ The awakening has been monitored until 15 m' from the interruption of propofol infusion. The data obtained don't permit to observe significant differences with regard to analgesia, neuromuscular block and awakening time. Therefore the authors put the question of the real necessity to use nitrous oxide, when it has utilized an efficient intravenous anaesthetic as the propofol has proved to be.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial Controlled Clinical Trial
Propofol for long-term sedation in the intensive care unit. A comparison with papaveretum and midazolam.
Thirty-seven patients with a wide range of illnesses were studied during mechanical ventilation of the lungs in an intensive care unit. Fifteen were sedated with a continuous propofol infusion, with analgesia provided by bolus doses of papaveretum. Twelve received a continuous infusion of papaveretum, supplemented by bolus doses of midazolam. ⋯ There was no significant difference in respiratory or haemodynamic variables between the groups, but several patients required inotropic support because of their disease. There was no evidence of inhibition of adrenal steroidogenesis in the propofol group. Propofol can be a useful sedative agent in the intensive care unit, but sedative regimens should be tailored to individual patient requirements.
-
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand · May 1990
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialQT interval of the ECG, heart rate and arterial pressure using propofol, methohexital or midazolam for induction of anaesthesia.
The effects of propofol 2 mg/kg, methohexital 2 mg/kg or midazolam 0.3 mg/kg were studied on the QT interval of the ECG corrected by the heart rate (QTc), heart rate and arterial pressure during induction of anaesthesia in 87 ASA class I-(II)-patients. The patients were randomly allocated to one of the three anaesthetic groups. The incidence of the patients with a prolonged QTc interval (= more than 440 ms) ranged from 29 to 41% between the groups. ⋯ After all anaesthetics, the QTc interval was significantly prolonged in the patients with a normal control QTc interval, whereas in the patients with a prolonged control QTc interval, it tended to be shortened both after propofol and methohexital and it was significantly shortened after midazolam. After injection of suxamethonium, no significant QTc interval changes occurred in the patients with a normal control QTc interval in either the propofol or the methohexital groups, whereas in the patients with a prolonged control QTc interval treated with propofol the QTc interval decreased significantly 60 s after suxamethonium when compared with the corresponding preceding values. The mean values in the propofol group in the patients with a normal control QTc interval were always below the upper limit of the normal range.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)