Comparison of Intravenous Propofol and Midazolam Anesthesia for Outpatient Cystoscopy.
10.4097/kjae.1998.34.6.1129
- Author:
Sang Hyun KWAK
1
;
Geun Duk LIM
;
Chang Young JEONG
;
Chan Jin PARK
Author Information
1. Department of Anesthesiology, Chonnam National University Medical School.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Anesthetics, intravenous: propofol;
midazolam;
Surgery, outpatient: cystoscopy
- MeSH:
Ambulatory Surgical Procedures;
Anesthesia*;
Anesthesia, Intravenous;
Arterial Pressure;
Commerce;
Cystoscopy*;
Depression;
Early Ambulation;
Fentanyl;
Humans;
Insurance, Health, Reimbursement;
Midazolam*;
Outpatients*;
Oxygen;
Propofol*;
Respiration;
Respiratory Insufficiency;
Vomiting
- From:Korean Journal of Anesthesiology
1998;34(6):1129-1135
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Ambulatory surgery has become popular because patients believe it allows them greater control over their business and personal lives and because third party payers find it reduces cost. This study was designed to compare the characteristics of induction and recovery as well as the safety of propofol with those of midazolam used for intravenous anesthesia in outpatient cystoscopy. METHODS: 56 healthy consenting outpatients were randomly assigned to receive either bolus of propofol (2 mg/kg, n=29) or midazolam (0.1 mg/kg, n=27) for anesthesia in outpatients cystoscopic procedure. All patients also received bolus of fentanyl 1ug/kg before induction and N-M blocking agent was not injected for maintenance of spontaneous respiration. Mean arterial pressure, HR and SpO2 were recorded and induction time (time to spontaneous eye closure), recovery time (time to response, time to orientation, time to ambulation) and adverse effects were evaluated. RESULTS: The results were as follows; 1) Both propofol and midazolam produced smooth induction, but caused significant respiratory depression. 2) The time of induction and postoperative recovery (time to ambulation) was faster in propofol than in midazolam. 3) There were less postoperative side effects (nausea, vomiting, dizziness) in propofol than in midazolam. 4) There were more cardiovascular depression in propofol than in midazolam. CONCLUSION: These results suggest 1) that propofol has significant advantage over midazolam in outpatient surgery, where early ambulation and discharge is desirable and 2) that both propofol and midazolam should be administered by expert anesthesiologist only when ventilatory assistant device with oxygen is immediately available.
