Abstract
We studied 90 healthy ASA physical status I or II female patients scheduled for outpatient therapeutic abortions. Sixty patients received induction doses of propofol (2.5 mg-kg-1) and 30 patients received thiopentone (4 mg·kg-1). Anaesthesia was maintained with nitrous oxide plus additional doses of the agent used for induction. Comparisons were made regarding the efficacy of induction and maintenance, rapidity of recovery, haemodynamic and respiratory variables and side effects. The number of “excellent” inductions was significantly different (p = 0.02), with 97 per cent of the patients induced with propofol and 80 per cent of the patients induced with thiopentone receiving this rating. A larger number of patients receiving propofol exhibited minor extraneous muscular movement during induction (p = 0.01). Recovery for the propofol group was significantly more rapid than with the thiopentone group (p = 0.001). The respiratory effect of the two drugs was not significantly different. Propofol caused a decrease in pulse rate and a decrease in systolic, diastolic and mean pressure which were significantly greater than with thiopentone.
From the observations made we conclude that propofol has the potential to be an excellent induction and maintenance agent for outpatient surgery in combination with nitrous oxide alone.
Résumé
On a étudié 90 patientes en bonne santé classe ASA l et II cédulées en externe pour avortement thérapeutique. Soixante patientes ont reçu des doses ďinduction de (2.5 mg-kg-1) de propofol et trente patientes ont reçu (4 mg·kg-1) de thiopentone. Ľanesthésie était maintenue avec du protoxide ďazote et des doses additionnelles de ľagent ďinduction. On a comparé ľefficacité de ľinduction et du maintien, la rapidité du réveil, les données hémodynamiques et respiratoires ainsi que les efforts secondaires.
Le nombre ďinductions “excellentes” était significativement différent (p = 0.02) chez 97 pour cent des patientes induites avec le propofol et 80 pour cent chez celles induites au thiopentone. Un plus grand nombre de patientes ayant reçu le propofol ont démontré des mouvements musculaires involontaires lors de ľinduction (p = 0.01). Le réveil était significativement plus rapide pour le groupe propofol que le groupe thiopentone (p = 0.001). Les effets respiratoires des deux médicaments n’étaient pas différents. Le propofol a provoqué une diminution du pouls et de la tension artérielle systolique, diastolique et moyenne qui était significativemenl plus grande que le groupe thiopentone.
De ces observations, on conclue que le propofol présente le potentiel ď être un excellent agent pour ľinduction et le maintien de ľanesthésie pour les patients externes si combinés au protoxide ďazote seul.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Aldrete, JA, Krouli kD Post anesthesia recovery score. Anesth Analg 1970; 49: 924–34
Mackenzie N, Grant IS Comparison of the new emulsion formulation of propofol with methohexitone and thiopentone for induction of anaesthesia in day cases. Br J Anaesth 1985; 57: 725–31
Wells JKG Comparison of ICI 35868, etomidate and methohexitone for day-case anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 1985; 57: 732–5
Kay NH, Uppington J, Sear JW, Allen MC Use of an emulsion of ICI 35868 (propofol) for the induction and maintenance of anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 1985; 57: 736–42
Redfern N, Stafford MA, Hull CJ Incremental propofol for short procedures. Br J Anaesth 1985; 57: 1178–82
Mouton SM, Bullington J, Davis L, Fisher K, Ramsey S, Wood M, A comparison of diprivan and thiopental for the induction of anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1985; 63: A364
Plosker H, Sampson I, Cohen M, Kaplan JA A comparison of diprivan and thiamylal sodium for the induction and maintenance of outpatient anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1985; 63: A366
Cummings GC, Dixon J, Kay NH et al Dose requirements of ICI 35,868 (Propofol, ‘Diprivan’) in a new formulation for induction of anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 1984; 39: 1168–71
Major E, Verniquet AJW, Waddell TK, Savege TM, Hoffter DE, Aveling W A study of three doses of ICI 35868 for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 1981; 53: 267–72
Briggs LP, Clarke RSJ, Dundee JW, Moore J, Bahar M, Wright PJ Use of di-isopropyl phenol as main agent for short procedures. Br J Anaesth 1981; 53: 1197–1202
Bujfington CW Hemodynamic determinants of myocardial dysfunction in the presence of coronary stenosis in dogs. Anesthesiology 1985; 63: 651–62
Patrick MR, Blair IJ, Feneck RO, Sebel PS A comparison of the hemodynamic effects of propofol (diprivan) and thiopentone in patients with coronary artery disease. Postgraduate Medical Journal 1985; 61: (Suppl 3) 23–7
Schuttler J, Stoeckel H, Schwilden H Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modelling of propofol ‘diprivan’) in volunteers and surgical patients. Postgraduate Med J 1985, 61 (Suppl 3) 53–4
Adam HK, Briggs LP, Bahar M, Douglas EJ, Dundee JW Pharmacokinetic evaluation of ICI 35868 in man Single induction doses with different rates of injection. Br J Anaesth l983; 55: 97
Fahmay NR, Mkhouli HM, Sunder N, Smith D, Kelley MM Diprivan A new intravenous induction agent A comparison with thiopental. Anesthesiology 1985; 63: A363
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Edelist, G. A comparison of propofol and thiopentone as induction agents in outpatient surgery. Can J Anesth 34, 110–116 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03015326
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03015326