• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

成人喉罩置入术中,8%七氟醚单呼吸肺活量诱导麻醉与静脉注射丙泊酚的比较。

Single breath vital capacity induction of anesthesia with 8% sevoflurane versus intravenous propofol for laryngeal tube insertion in adults.

作者信息

El-Radaideh Khaled M, Al-Ghazo Mohammed A

机构信息

Department of Anesthesia, King Abdullah University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, PO Box 953, Irbid 21110, Jordan.

出版信息

Saudi Med J. 2007 Jan;28(1):36-40.

PMID:17206286
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the conditions for laryngeal tube airway insertion obtained by the inhalation of 8% sevoflurane using a vital capacity breath (VCB) technique with propofol intravenous induction.

METHODS

We carried out a prospective, randomized, single blind study at King Abdullah University Hospital, Irbid, Jordan from September 2005 to April 2006. Involved in this study were 80 adult (ASA physical status I and II) patients aged 26-70 years undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia. The patients were randomized into 2 groups. An independent observer noted the time to loss of consciousness, the presence of adverse events, time to successful laryngeal tube placement and the number of attempts needed until a successful laryngeal tube insertion.

RESULTS

With the single VCB method, sevoflurane produced a loss of consciousness faster than propofol did (51.6 +/- 4.4 versus 59.7 +/- 4.9 seconds, p<0.001). The insertion of laryngeal tube was faster in the propofol group (77.2 +/- 20.2 versus 122.2 +/- 33.3 seconds, p<0.001) and required fewer attempts (1.2 +/- 0.4 versus 1.6 +/- 0.7, p<0.02). The overall incidence of complications during the induction of anesthesia as well as during the laryngeal tube insertion, especially apnea (42% versus 0%; p<0.001), was more frequent in the propofol group (82.5% versus 27.5%; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that vital capacity breath induction with sevoflurane produces a faster loss of consciousness and fewer side effects than propofol and efficient for laryngeal tube insertion, but takes slightly longer than propofol due to the prolonged jaw tightness.

摘要

目的

比较采用肺活量呼吸(VCB)技术吸入8%七氟醚与丙泊酚静脉诱导用于喉罩气道插入的情况。

方法

2005年9月至2006年4月,我们在约旦伊尔比德的阿卜杜拉国王大学医院开展了一项前瞻性、随机、单盲研究。本研究纳入80例年龄在26 - 70岁、接受全身麻醉下择期手术的成年(美国麻醉医师协会身体状况I级和II级)患者。患者被随机分为2组。一名独立观察者记录意识消失时间、不良事件的发生情况、喉罩成功置入时间以及成功插入喉罩所需的尝试次数。

结果

采用单次VCB方法时,七氟醚使意识消失的速度比丙泊酚更快(51.6±4.4秒对59.7±4.9秒,p<0.001)。丙泊酚组喉罩插入更快(77.2±20.2秒对122.2±33.3秒,p<0.001)且所需尝试次数更少(1.2±0.4次对1.6±0.7次,p<0.02)。丙泊酚组在麻醉诱导期间以及喉罩插入期间并发症的总体发生率,尤其是呼吸暂停(42%对0%;p<0.001),更为频繁(82.5%对27.5%;p<0.001)。

结论

我们得出结论,与丙泊酚相比,七氟醚肺活量呼吸诱导能更快地使意识消失且副作用更少,对喉罩插入有效,但由于下颌紧张时间延长,比丙泊酚稍慢。

相似文献

1
Single breath vital capacity induction of anesthesia with 8% sevoflurane versus intravenous propofol for laryngeal tube insertion in adults.成人喉罩置入术中,8%七氟醚单呼吸肺活量诱导麻醉与静脉注射丙泊酚的比较。
Saudi Med J. 2007 Jan;28(1):36-40.
2
Propofol or sevoflurane for laryngeal mask airway insertion.用于喉罩置入的丙泊酚或七氟烷。
Can J Anaesth. 1999 Apr;46(4):322-6. doi: 10.1007/BF03013222.
3
A prospective, randomized comparison of the effects of inhaled sevoflurane anesthesia and propofol/remifentanil intravenous anesthesia on salivary excretion during laryngeal microsurgery.吸入七氟醚麻醉与丙泊酚/瑞芬太尼静脉麻醉对喉显微手术期间唾液分泌影响的前瞻性随机对照研究。
Anesth Analg. 2008 Jun;106(6):1723-7. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181730063.
4
Comparison of propofol and sevoflurane for laryngeal mask airway insertion in elderly patients.丙泊酚与七氟醚用于老年患者喉罩置入术的比较
South Med J. 2007 Apr;100(4):360-5. doi: 10.1097/SMJ.0b013e31802fa6b6.
5
Sevoflurane-remifentanil versus propofol-remifentanil anesthesia at a similar bispectral level for off-pump coronary artery surgery: no evidence of reduced myocardial ischemia.在相似脑电双频指数水平下,七氟醚-瑞芬太尼与丙泊酚-瑞芬太尼用于非体外循环冠状动脉搭桥手术麻醉的比较:无心肌缺血减轻的证据
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2006 Aug;20(4):484-92. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2005.08.001. Epub 2006 Feb 2.
6
Rapid sevoflurane induction compared with thiopental.七氟醚与硫喷妥钠相比的快速诱导。
J Clin Anesth. 2004 Jun;16(4):271-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2003.09.007.
7
Comparison of sevoflurane and propofol for ambulatory anaesthesia in gynaecological surgery.七氟醚与丙泊酚用于妇科手术门诊麻醉的比较。
Can J Anaesth. 1998 Dec;45(12):1148-50. doi: 10.1007/BF03012454.
8
A comparison of sevoflurane induction versus propofol induction for laryngeal mask airway insertion in elderly patients.老年患者喉罩置入时七氟醚诱导与丙泊酚诱导的比较。
Saudi Med J. 2010 Oct;31(10):1124-9.
9
Comparison of the anesthesia profiles between sevoflurane-nitrous oxide and propofol-nitrous oxide conveyed by laryngeal mask airway in patients undergoing ambulatory gynecological surgery.喉罩气道用于门诊妇科手术患者时七氟醚-氧化亚氮与丙泊酚-氧化亚氮麻醉效果的比较
Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan. 2006 Jun;44(2):101-7.
10
Single vital capacity inhalational anaesthetic induction in adults--isoflurane vs sevoflurane.成人单次肺活量吸入麻醉诱导——异氟烷与七氟烷的比较
Can J Anaesth. 1998 Oct;45(10):949-53. doi: 10.1007/BF03012302.

引用本文的文献

1
Comparison of sevoflurane and propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion and pressor response in patients undergoing gynecological procedures.七氟醚与丙泊酚用于妇科手术患者喉罩置入及升压反应的比较。
J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Jan-Mar;33(1):97-101. doi: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_313_15.
2
Assessment of tracheal intubation in adults after induction with sevoflurane and different doses of propofol: a randomly controlled trial.七氟醚与不同剂量丙泊酚诱导后成人气管插管的评估:一项随机对照试验。
Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Aug 15;8(8):14042-7. eCollection 2015.
3
Comparison of vital capacity induction with sevoflurane to intravenous induction with propofol in adult patients.
成年患者中七氟醚肺活量诱导与丙泊酚静脉诱导的比较。
Anesth Essays Res. 2014 Sep-Dec;8(3):319-23. doi: 10.4103/0259-1162.143122.
4
Cost-effectiveness of different regimens of anesthesia for day surgery in China.中国日间手术不同麻醉方案的成本效益
Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014 Dec 15;7(12):5744-50. eCollection 2014.