Related Experiment Videos
Inhalation induction with sevoflurane: a double-blind comparison with propofol
A Thwaites1, S Edmends, I Smith
1North Staffordshire Hospitals, Stoke-on-Trent.
British Journal of Anaesthesia
|April 1, 1997
Summary
Sevoflurane inhalation offers faster emergence and fewer breathing complications for anesthesia induction compared to propofol. However, some patients found sevoflurane induction unpleasant, despite its cost-effectiveness and objective benefits.
Area of Science:
- Anesthesiology
- Pharmacology
Background:
- Propofol is a common intravenous anesthetic induction agent.
- Sevoflurane is an inhaled anesthetic agent.
- Day-case cystoscopy requires efficient and safe anesthesia induction.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare 8% sevoflurane inhalation with propofol for anesthesia induction in day-case cystoscopy.
- To evaluate objective and subjective outcomes of sevoflurane versus propofol induction.
Main Methods:
- Randomized, double-blind comparison of 102 patients.
- Induction with intravenous propofol or inhaled 8% sevoflurane.
- Maintenance with 2% sevoflurane via face mask.
- Assessment of induction time, respiratory events, emergence time, and patient satisfaction.
Main Results:
- Sevoflurane induction was slower (84s vs 57s) but had less apnea (16% vs 65%) and faster spontaneous ventilation recovery (94s vs 126s).
- Sevoflurane led to smoother transitions, less hypotension, and earlier emergence (5.2 min vs 7.0 min).
- Sevoflurane induction was cheaper, but 14% of patients rated it unpleasant versus 0% for propofol.
Conclusions:
- Inhalation induction with 8% sevoflurane offers objective advantages over propofol for day-case cystoscopy, including faster emergence and fewer respiratory complications.
- Despite objective benefits, a significant minority of patients expressed dislike for sevoflurane induction, warranting further investigation into patient preference factors.