Sevoflurane versus propofol for interventional neuroradiology: a comparison of the maintenance and recovery profiles at comparable depths of anesthesia.
10.4097/kjae.2014.66.4.290
- Author:
Eun Su CHOI
1
;
Ji Yeon SHIN
;
Ah Young OH
;
Hee Pyoung PARK
;
Jung Won HWANG
;
Young Jin LIM
;
Young Tae JEON
Author Information
1. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea. ytjeon@snubh.org
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Randomized Controlled Trial
- Keywords:
Bispectral index;
Interventional radiology;
Propofol;
Sevoflurane
- MeSH:
Alfentanil;
Anesthesia*;
Arterial Pressure;
Hemodynamics;
Humans;
International Normalized Ratio;
Intubation;
Nitrous Oxide;
Oxygen;
Phenylephrine;
Propofol*;
Radiology, Interventional;
Ventilation
- From:Korean Journal of Anesthesiology
2014;66(4):290-294
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Sevoflurane and propofol are used widely for interventional neuroradiology (INR). Using the bispectral index (BIS), we compared the clinical properties of sevoflurane and propofol anesthesia in patients undergoing INR at comparable depths of anesthesia. METHODS: The patients were allocated randomly into two groups. The sevoflurane group received propofol (1.5 mg/kg), alfentanil (5 microg/kg), and rocuronium (0.6 mg/kg) for induction, and the propofol group was induced with a target effect-site concentration of propofol (4 microg/ml), alfentanil (5 microg/kg), and rocuronium (0.6 mg/kg). After intubation, anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane or propofol with 67% nitrous oxide in 33% oxygen. Sevoflurane and propofol concentrations were titrated to maintain the BIS at 50-60. Phenylephrine or opioid was used to maintain the mean arterial pressure within 20% of the baseline values. The amounts of phenylephrine or alfentanil used, the number of patients showing movement during the procedure, and the recovery times were recorded. RESULTS: Compared to the propofol group, the sevoflurane group showed faster recovery in spontaneous ventilation, eye opening, extubation, and orientation (4 vs. 7 min, 7 vs. 9 min, 8 vs. 10 min, 10 vs. 14 min, respectively; P < 0.01). In the propofol group, significantly greater amounts phenylephrine were used (P < 0.05), and more patients moved during the procedure (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The use of sevoflurane in maintaining anesthesia during INR was associated with faster recovery, less patient movement during the procedure, and a more stable hemodynamic response when compared to propofol.
