Abstract
Induction of anaesthesia using the vital capacity rapid inhalation induction (VCRII) technique with either sevoflurane or halothane was compared. The induction time, characteristics, and acceptability were assessed. Thirty-two volunteers were given one of the vapours: 17 received sevoflurane and 15 halothane. Subjects were unpremedicated and breathed approximately 2.6 × minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) equivalent of either agent. There were no differences in the patients’ cardiovascular or respiratory variables. The mean time for induction of anaesthesia with halothane (153 ± 46 sec, SD) was slower than with sevoflurane (81 ± 22 sec, SD, P < 0.05), reflecting its higher blood:gas solubility. There were fewer induction complications such as coughing and movement in the sevoflurane than in the halothane group. Subjects in the sevoflurane group found the smell of anaesthetic more acceptable than those in the halothane group (65% vs 13%, respectively). Subjects in both groups had no objection to undergoing the procedure again. It is concluded that both halothane and sevoflurane are effective in VCRII of anaesthesia without premedication. However, the slower speed of induction with halothane frustrated the anaesthetist because of the longer induction time, and may increase the chance of pronounced excitatory phenomena occurring.
Résumé
Cette étude compare l’induction à l’halothane à celle du sévoflurane avec la technique d’induction rapide par inhalation jusqu’à la capacité vitale. Trente-deux volontaires ont fait l’objet de cette épreuve et chacun d’eux a reçu un des deux agents: 17 ont reçu le sévoflurane et 15, l’halothane. Non prémédiqués, ils ont inspiré approximativement 2,6 fois l’équivalent de la concentration alvéolaire minimum (CAM) de l’un ou de l’autre des agents. Il n’y avait de différences entre les paramètres cardiovasculaires et respiratoires. La durée moyenne de l’induction de l’anesthésie avec l’halothane (153 ± 46 sec, SD) a été plus lente que celle produite par le sévoflurane (81 ± 22 sec, SD, P < 0,05), ce qui reflète son coefficient de solubilité sang:gaz plus élevé. L’incidence des complications telles que la toux et les mouvements a été moindre avec sévoflurane qu’avec l’halothane. Les sujets du groupe sévoflurane ont trouvé son odeur plus acceptable que ceux de l’halothane (63% et 13% respectivement). Les sujets des deux groupes n’auraient pas eu d’objection à répéter l’épreuve. En conclusion, l’halothane et le sévoflurane se prêtent tous deux à cette technique d’induction rapide. La lenteur de l’induction à l’halothane a été frustrante pour l’anesthésiste et pourrait augmenter l’incidence des phénomènes d’excitation.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Ruffle JM, Snider MT, Rosenberger JL, Latta WB. Rapid induction of halothane anaesthesia in man. Br J Anaesth 1985; 57: 607–11.
Ruffle JM, Snider MT. Comparison of rapid and conventional inhalation inductions of halothane oxygen anesthesia in healthy men and women. Anesthesiology 1987; 67: 584–7.
Wilton NCT, Thomas VL. Single breath induction of anaesthesia, using a vital capacity breath of halothane, nitrous oxide and oxygen. Anaesthesia 1986; 41: 472–6.
Inhalational induction of anaesthesia — new inspiration? (Editorial). Lancet 1986b; 2: 84.
Lamberty JM, Wilson IH. Single breath induction of anaesthesia with isoflurane. Br J Anaesth 1987; 59: 1214–8.
Bourne JG. General anaesthesia for out-patients with special reference to dental extraction. Proc R Soc Med 1954; 47: 416–20.
Eger El II. Anesthesia Uptake and Action. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1974; 122–45.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yurino, M., Kimura, H. Vital capacity rapid inhalation induction technique: comparison of sevoflurane and halothane. Can J Anaesth 40, 440–443 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03009514
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03009514