Comparison of the anaesthetic requirement with target-controlled infusion of propofol to insert the laryngeal tube vs. the laryngeal mask

被引:14
|
作者
Richebe, P
Rivalan, B
Baudouin, L
Sesay, M
Sztark, F
Cros, AM
Maurette, P
机构
[1] CHU Bordeaux, Dept Anesthesie & Reanimat 1, F-33076 Bordeaux, France
[2] CHU Bordeaux, Dept Anesthesie & Reanimat 4, F-33076 Bordeaux, France
关键词
laryngeal mask; propofol; anaesthesia intravenous;
D O I
10.1017/S0265021505001456
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Background and objective: The target effect-site concentration of propofol to Insert a laryngeal mask airway was recently reported as almost 5 mu g mL(-1). The present study aimed to determine the target effect-site concentration with target-controlled infusion of propofol to place classical larnygeal mask airway or current laryngeal tube in adult patients. Methods: We included 40 patients scheduled for short gynaecological and radiological procedures under general anaesthesia in a randomized, double-blind manner using the Dixon's up-and-down statistical method. Monitoring included standard cardiorespiratory monitors, and bispectral index monitoring was used for all patients. Anaesthesia was conducted with a target-controlled infusion system: Diprifusor (TM). The initial target plasma concentration of propofol was 5 mu g mL(-1), and was changed stepwise by 0.5 mu g mL(-1) increments according to Dixon's up-and-down method. Criteria for acceptable insertion were: Muzi's score <= 2, and mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate or bispectral index variation < 20% the baseline values. Results: Target effect-site concentration of propofol required to insert laryngeal tube was 6.3 +/- 0.3 mu g mL(-1) with Dixon method and ED50 was 6.1 mu g mL(-1) (5.9-6.4) with logistic regression method. In the case of larnygeal mask airway they were 7.3 +/- 0.2 mu g mL(-1) (Dixon method) and 7.3 mu g mL(-1) (7.1-7.5; with logistic regression) respectively (P < 0.05). ED95 (logistic regression) was 6.8 mu g mL(-1) (5.9-7.6) for laryngeal tube and 7.7 mu g mL(-1) (7.3-8.0) for larnygeal mask airway (P < 0.05). Haemodynamic incidents were 55% in the larnygeal mask airway group vs. 30% in the laryngeal tube group (P < 0.05). Conclusions: The target effect-site concentration of propofol for insertion of laryngeal tube was lower than for larnygeal mask airway (P < 0.05), with a consequent reduction of the propofol induced haemodynamic side-effects.
引用
收藏
页码:858 / 863
页数:6
相关论文
共 49 条
  • [21] Schnider and Eleveld Models for Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion Anesthesia: A Clinical Comparison
    Linassi, Federico
    Zanatta, Paolo
    Spano, Leonardo
    Burelli, Paolo
    Farnia, Antonio
    Carron, Michele
    LIFE-BASEL, 2023, 13 (10):
  • [22] Comparative study of effective-site target controlled infusion with standard bolus induction of propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion
    Sintavanuruk, Krairerk
    Pongruekdee, Sukanya
    Thaharavanich, Russana
    Laosuwan, Surajak
    Charuluxananan, Somrat
    ASIAN BIOMEDICINE, 2010, 4 (01) : 177 - 182
  • [23] Target-controlled infusion (Propofol) versus inhaled anaesthetic (Sevoflurane) in patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopic surgery
    Tantry, Thrivikrama Padur
    Muralishankar, B. G.
    Adappa, Karunakara Kenjar
    Bhandary, Sudarshan
    Shetty, Pramal
    Shenoy, Sunil P.
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2013, 57 (01) : 35 - 40
  • [24] Laryngeal mask vs. laryngeal tube trial in paediatric patients (LaMaTuPe): a single-blinded, open-label, randomised-controlled trial
    Katzenschlager, Stephan
    Mohr, Stefan
    Kaltschmidt, Nikolai
    Peterstorfer, Franziska
    Weilbacher, Frank
    Guenther, Patrick
    Ries, Markus
    Weigand, Markus A.
    Popp, Erik
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2025, 32 (02) : 123 - 130
  • [25] Comparison of arterial hypotension incidence during general anesthesia induction - target-controlled infusion vs. bolus injection of propofol: a randomized clinical trial
    Vale, Ana G. G.
    Goveia, Catia S.
    Guimaraes, Gabriel M. N.
    Terra, Laize R.
    Ladeira, Luis C. A.
    Essado, Guilherme A.
    BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2024, 74 (04):
  • [26] A comparison of induction of anaesthesia using a target-controlled infusion device in dogs with propofol or a propofol and alfentanil admixture
    Auckburally, Adam
    Pawson, Pat
    Flaherty, Derek
    VETERINARY ANAESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2008, 35 (04) : 319 - 325
  • [27] Comparison between continuous rate infusion and target-controlled infusion of propofol in dogs: a randomized clinical trial
    Cuniberti, Barbara
    Huuskonen, Vilhelmiina
    Hughes, J. M. Lynne
    VETERINARY ANAESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2023, 50 (01) : 21 - 30
  • [28] Target-controlled propofol vs. sevoflurane: a double-blind randomised comparison in day-case anaesthesia
    Smith, I
    Thwaites, AJ
    ANAESTHESIA, 1999, 54 (08) : 745 - 752
  • [29] Propofol target-controlled infusion for sedated gastrointestinal endoscopy: A comparison of propofol alone versus propofol-fentanyl-midazolam
    Hsu, Chiung-Dan
    Huang, Jui-Mei
    Chuang, Ya-Ping
    Wei, Hua-Yi
    Su, Yu-Chung
    Wu, Jeng-Yih
    Wang, Wen-Ming
    Hsu, Hung-Te
    Huang, Hui-Fang
    Lu, I-Cheng
    Lu, David Vi
    KAOHSIUNG JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2015, 31 (11) : 580 - 584
  • [30] Commentary: Intravenous fentanyl vs. topical lignocaine for ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway insertion with propofol induction
    Sun, Zhongpeng
    Dong, Yang
    FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE, 2023, 10