Propofol-nitrous oxide versus thiopental-isoflurane-nitrous oxide for general anesthesia
One hundred and twenty patients undergoing elective operations were randomly assigned to receive anesthesia with either thiopental, 4 mg/kg-isoflurane, 0.2-3%-nitrous oxide, 60-70% (control) or propofol, 2 mg/kg-propofol infusion, 1-20 mg/min-nitrous oxide, 60-70% (propofol). Although anesthetic con...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Anesthesiology (Philadelphia) 1988-07, Vol.69 (1), p.63-71 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 71 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 63 |
container_title | Anesthesiology (Philadelphia) |
container_volume | 69 |
creator | DOZE, V. A SHAFER, A WHITE, P. F |
description | One hundred and twenty patients undergoing elective operations were randomly assigned to receive anesthesia with either thiopental, 4 mg/kg-isoflurane, 0.2-3%-nitrous oxide, 60-70% (control) or propofol, 2 mg/kg-propofol infusion, 1-20 mg/min-nitrous oxide, 60-70% (propofol). Although anesthetic conditions were similar during the operation, differences were noted in the recovery characteristics. For non-major (superficial) surgical procedures, the times to awakening, responsiveness, orientation, and ambulation were significantly shorter in the propofol group (4 +/- 3, 5 +/- 4, 6 +/- 4, and 104 +/- 36 min) than in the control group (8 +/- 7, 9 +/- 7, 11 +/- 9, and 142 +/- 61 min, respectively). In addition, less nausea and vomiting (20 vs. 45%) and significantly less psychomotor impairment was noted in the non-major propofol (vs. control) group. Following major abdominal operations, recovery characteristics did not differ between propofol and control groups. Delayed emergence (greater than 20 min), significant psychometric impairment, and a high overall incidence of postoperative side effects (55-60%) were noted in both drug treatment groups. The authors conclude that propofol-nitrous oxide compares favorably to thiopental-isoflurane-nitrous oxide for maintenance of anesthesia during short outpatient procedures. However, for major abdominal operations, propofol anesthesia does not appear to offer any clinically significant advantages over a standard inhalational anesthetic technique. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1097/00000542-198807000-00010 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78295529</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>78295529</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-2a9303a911724658e82ea408bf26ab51e38da1baf5e93254593e40771923b4093</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkEtPAyEUhYnR1Fr9CSazMO5QngMsjfGVNNGFJu4IMwWLoWWEGaP_XmrHLiQh5HDP5R4-ACqMLjBS4hJtFmcEYiUlEkXAsjHaA1PMiYQYC74PpuWOQooIOQRHOb8XKTiVEzChROGa1VPw-pRiF10McO37FIdcxS-_sNWnTbmIfuljZ9e9CdDn6MKQzNr-s7qYqje7tsmEqlRzv7TZm2Nw4EzI9mQ8Z-Dl9ub5-h7OH-8erq_msGWS9ZAYRRE1qgQmrObSSmINQ7JxpDYNx5bKhcGNcdwqSjjjilqGhMCK0IYhRWfgfPtul-LHUKbrlc-tDaFEKRm1kERxTjZGuTW2KeacrNNd8iuTvjVGegNV_0HVO6j6F2ppPR1nDM3KLnaNI8VSPxvrJrcmuAKp9XlnE6KW5X_0B9Ggf1M</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>78295529</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Propofol-nitrous oxide versus thiopental-isoflurane-nitrous oxide for general anesthesia</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>DOZE, V. A ; SHAFER, A ; WHITE, P. F</creator><creatorcontrib>DOZE, V. A ; SHAFER, A ; WHITE, P. F</creatorcontrib><description>One hundred and twenty patients undergoing elective operations were randomly assigned to receive anesthesia with either thiopental, 4 mg/kg-isoflurane, 0.2-3%-nitrous oxide, 60-70% (control) or propofol, 2 mg/kg-propofol infusion, 1-20 mg/min-nitrous oxide, 60-70% (propofol). Although anesthetic conditions were similar during the operation, differences were noted in the recovery characteristics. For non-major (superficial) surgical procedures, the times to awakening, responsiveness, orientation, and ambulation were significantly shorter in the propofol group (4 +/- 3, 5 +/- 4, 6 +/- 4, and 104 +/- 36 min) than in the control group (8 +/- 7, 9 +/- 7, 11 +/- 9, and 142 +/- 61 min, respectively). In addition, less nausea and vomiting (20 vs. 45%) and significantly less psychomotor impairment was noted in the non-major propofol (vs. control) group. Following major abdominal operations, recovery characteristics did not differ between propofol and control groups. Delayed emergence (greater than 20 min), significant psychometric impairment, and a high overall incidence of postoperative side effects (55-60%) were noted in both drug treatment groups. The authors conclude that propofol-nitrous oxide compares favorably to thiopental-isoflurane-nitrous oxide for maintenance of anesthesia during short outpatient procedures. However, for major abdominal operations, propofol anesthesia does not appear to offer any clinically significant advantages over a standard inhalational anesthetic technique.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-3022</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1528-1175</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/00000542-198807000-00010</identifier><identifier>PMID: 3291646</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ANESAV</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hagerstown, MD: Lippincott</publisher><subject>Adult ; Anesthesia ; Anesthesia, General ; Anesthesia, Inhalation ; Anesthesia, Intravenous ; Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy ; Anesthetics ; Biological and medical sciences ; Clinical Trials as Topic ; Female ; General anesthesia. Technics. Complications. Neuromuscular blocking. Premedication. Surgical preparation. Sedation ; Humans ; Isoflurane ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Nitrous Oxide ; Phenols ; Propofol ; Random Allocation ; Thiopental</subject><ispartof>Anesthesiology (Philadelphia), 1988-07, Vol.69 (1), p.63-71</ispartof><rights>1988 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-2a9303a911724658e82ea408bf26ab51e38da1baf5e93254593e40771923b4093</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=7768117$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3291646$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>DOZE, V. A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SHAFER, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WHITE, P. F</creatorcontrib><title>Propofol-nitrous oxide versus thiopental-isoflurane-nitrous oxide for general anesthesia</title><title>Anesthesiology (Philadelphia)</title><addtitle>Anesthesiology</addtitle><description>One hundred and twenty patients undergoing elective operations were randomly assigned to receive anesthesia with either thiopental, 4 mg/kg-isoflurane, 0.2-3%-nitrous oxide, 60-70% (control) or propofol, 2 mg/kg-propofol infusion, 1-20 mg/min-nitrous oxide, 60-70% (propofol). Although anesthetic conditions were similar during the operation, differences were noted in the recovery characteristics. For non-major (superficial) surgical procedures, the times to awakening, responsiveness, orientation, and ambulation were significantly shorter in the propofol group (4 +/- 3, 5 +/- 4, 6 +/- 4, and 104 +/- 36 min) than in the control group (8 +/- 7, 9 +/- 7, 11 +/- 9, and 142 +/- 61 min, respectively). In addition, less nausea and vomiting (20 vs. 45%) and significantly less psychomotor impairment was noted in the non-major propofol (vs. control) group. Following major abdominal operations, recovery characteristics did not differ between propofol and control groups. Delayed emergence (greater than 20 min), significant psychometric impairment, and a high overall incidence of postoperative side effects (55-60%) were noted in both drug treatment groups. The authors conclude that propofol-nitrous oxide compares favorably to thiopental-isoflurane-nitrous oxide for maintenance of anesthesia during short outpatient procedures. However, for major abdominal operations, propofol anesthesia does not appear to offer any clinically significant advantages over a standard inhalational anesthetic technique.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Anesthesia</subject><subject>Anesthesia, General</subject><subject>Anesthesia, Inhalation</subject><subject>Anesthesia, Intravenous</subject><subject>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy</subject><subject>Anesthetics</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Clinical Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>General anesthesia. Technics. Complications. Neuromuscular blocking. Premedication. Surgical preparation. Sedation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Isoflurane</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nitrous Oxide</subject><subject>Phenols</subject><subject>Propofol</subject><subject>Random Allocation</subject><subject>Thiopental</subject><issn>0003-3022</issn><issn>1528-1175</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1988</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkEtPAyEUhYnR1Fr9CSazMO5QngMsjfGVNNGFJu4IMwWLoWWEGaP_XmrHLiQh5HDP5R4-ACqMLjBS4hJtFmcEYiUlEkXAsjHaA1PMiYQYC74PpuWOQooIOQRHOb8XKTiVEzChROGa1VPw-pRiF10McO37FIdcxS-_sNWnTbmIfuljZ9e9CdDn6MKQzNr-s7qYqje7tsmEqlRzv7TZm2Nw4EzI9mQ8Z-Dl9ub5-h7OH-8erq_msGWS9ZAYRRE1qgQmrObSSmINQ7JxpDYNx5bKhcGNcdwqSjjjilqGhMCK0IYhRWfgfPtul-LHUKbrlc-tDaFEKRm1kERxTjZGuTW2KeacrNNd8iuTvjVGegNV_0HVO6j6F2ppPR1nDM3KLnaNI8VSPxvrJrcmuAKp9XlnE6KW5X_0B9Ggf1M</recordid><startdate>19880701</startdate><enddate>19880701</enddate><creator>DOZE, V. A</creator><creator>SHAFER, A</creator><creator>WHITE, P. F</creator><general>Lippincott</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19880701</creationdate><title>Propofol-nitrous oxide versus thiopental-isoflurane-nitrous oxide for general anesthesia</title><author>DOZE, V. A ; SHAFER, A ; WHITE, P. F</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-2a9303a911724658e82ea408bf26ab51e38da1baf5e93254593e40771923b4093</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1988</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Anesthesia</topic><topic>Anesthesia, General</topic><topic>Anesthesia, Inhalation</topic><topic>Anesthesia, Intravenous</topic><topic>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy</topic><topic>Anesthetics</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Clinical Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>General anesthesia. Technics. Complications. Neuromuscular blocking. Premedication. Surgical preparation. Sedation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Isoflurane</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nitrous Oxide</topic><topic>Phenols</topic><topic>Propofol</topic><topic>Random Allocation</topic><topic>Thiopental</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>DOZE, V. A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SHAFER, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WHITE, P. F</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Anesthesiology (Philadelphia)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>DOZE, V. A</au><au>SHAFER, A</au><au>WHITE, P. F</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Propofol-nitrous oxide versus thiopental-isoflurane-nitrous oxide for general anesthesia</atitle><jtitle>Anesthesiology (Philadelphia)</jtitle><addtitle>Anesthesiology</addtitle><date>1988-07-01</date><risdate>1988</risdate><volume>69</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>63</spage><epage>71</epage><pages>63-71</pages><issn>0003-3022</issn><eissn>1528-1175</eissn><coden>ANESAV</coden><abstract>One hundred and twenty patients undergoing elective operations were randomly assigned to receive anesthesia with either thiopental, 4 mg/kg-isoflurane, 0.2-3%-nitrous oxide, 60-70% (control) or propofol, 2 mg/kg-propofol infusion, 1-20 mg/min-nitrous oxide, 60-70% (propofol). Although anesthetic conditions were similar during the operation, differences were noted in the recovery characteristics. For non-major (superficial) surgical procedures, the times to awakening, responsiveness, orientation, and ambulation were significantly shorter in the propofol group (4 +/- 3, 5 +/- 4, 6 +/- 4, and 104 +/- 36 min) than in the control group (8 +/- 7, 9 +/- 7, 11 +/- 9, and 142 +/- 61 min, respectively). In addition, less nausea and vomiting (20 vs. 45%) and significantly less psychomotor impairment was noted in the non-major propofol (vs. control) group. Following major abdominal operations, recovery characteristics did not differ between propofol and control groups. Delayed emergence (greater than 20 min), significant psychometric impairment, and a high overall incidence of postoperative side effects (55-60%) were noted in both drug treatment groups. The authors conclude that propofol-nitrous oxide compares favorably to thiopental-isoflurane-nitrous oxide for maintenance of anesthesia during short outpatient procedures. However, for major abdominal operations, propofol anesthesia does not appear to offer any clinically significant advantages over a standard inhalational anesthetic technique.</abstract><cop>Hagerstown, MD</cop><pub>Lippincott</pub><pmid>3291646</pmid><doi>10.1097/00000542-198807000-00010</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0003-3022 |
ispartof | Anesthesiology (Philadelphia), 1988-07, Vol.69 (1), p.63-71 |
issn | 0003-3022 1528-1175 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78295529 |
source | MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Journals@Ovid Complete |
subjects | Adult Anesthesia Anesthesia, General Anesthesia, Inhalation Anesthesia, Intravenous Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy Anesthetics Biological and medical sciences Clinical Trials as Topic Female General anesthesia. Technics. Complications. Neuromuscular blocking. Premedication. Surgical preparation. Sedation Humans Isoflurane Male Medical sciences Middle Aged Nitrous Oxide Phenols Propofol Random Allocation Thiopental |
title | Propofol-nitrous oxide versus thiopental-isoflurane-nitrous oxide for general anesthesia |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T06%3A57%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Propofol-nitrous%20oxide%20versus%20thiopental-isoflurane-nitrous%20oxide%20for%20general%20anesthesia&rft.jtitle=Anesthesiology%20(Philadelphia)&rft.au=DOZE,%20V.%20A&rft.date=1988-07-01&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=63&rft.epage=71&rft.pages=63-71&rft.issn=0003-3022&rft.eissn=1528-1175&rft.coden=ANESAV&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/00000542-198807000-00010&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E78295529%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=78295529&rft_id=info:pmid/3291646&rfr_iscdi=true |