Comparison of Propofol-Remifentanil and Sevoflurane-Remifentanil Anesthesia for Suspension Laryngoscopic Surgery.
- Author:
Ji Young KHIL
1
;
Yoon Ji CHOI
;
Sung Uk CHOI
;
Hye Won SHIN
;
Hye Won LEE
;
Hae Ja LIM
;
Suk Min YOON
;
Seong Ho CHANG
Author Information
1. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. hwshin99@yahoo.com
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Randomized Controlled Trial
- Keywords:
laryngoscopic surgery;
propofol;
remifentanil
- MeSH:
Anesthesia;
Catheters;
Hemodynamics;
Humans;
Hypertension;
Intubation;
Laryngoscopy;
Methyl Ethers;
Piperidines;
Propofol;
Succinylcholine;
Suction;
Tachycardia;
Thiopental
- From:Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
2008;3(1):12-16
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Suspension laryngoscopic surgery may cause acute hemodynamic changes such as hypertension and tachycardia and requires rapid recovery. The purpose of this study was to compare the hemodynamic responses, and emergence and recovery profiles between propofol-remifentanil and sevoflurane-remfentanil anesthesia. METHODS: Forty patients (ASA I, II) undergoing suspension laryngoscopic surgery were randomly allocated to either a propofol group (Group P) or sevoflurane group (Group S). Anesthesia was induced with target concentration of 5microg/ml using propofol target controlled infusion (TCI) in group P and thiopental sodium 5 mg/kg in group S, respectively. In both groups, after succinylcholine 1 mg/kg IV bolus injection, remifentanil was infused with a target concentration 5 ng/ml using remifentanil TCI for tracheal intubation. Anesthesia was maintained with N2O 2 L/min, O2 2 L/min, remifentanil (2.5-7.0 ng/ml), succinylcholine infusion (0.15 mg/kg/ min) in both groups, with propofol (2.0microg/ml) was used in group P and sevoflurane 3.0 vol% in group S. We compared hemodynamic status, and emergence and recovery profiles during and after operation. RESULTS: MAP and HR after tracheal intubation and suspension laryngoscopy insertion showed significantly smaller changes in group P and were more stable compared with group S. The suction time of the catheter response was shorter in group P compared with group S, and sedation was less deeper in group P than group S. Other recovery profiles were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: During propofol-remifentanil anesthesia, hemodynamics were not increased by intubation or suspension laryngoscopy, and the early emergence and good recovery profiles of patients were appeared favorably compared with sevofluraneremifentanil anesthesia.
