D'Angelo C, Vacca F, Perin S, Cervi R, Pincelli D
Servizio di Anestesia e Rianimazione, USL n. 15, Ospedali di Concordia e Finale Emilia.
Minerva Anestesiol. 1990 May;56(5):169-74.
The authors have compared two groups of 31 patients each, undergone an anaesthesia with propofol-O2/N2O (group I) and propofol-O2/air (group II). The average anaesthetic dosage and the neuromuscular recovery time have been valued, keeping constant the dose of analgesic. The average consumption of propofol (except the inductive dose of 2 mg/kg) was 7.41 +/- 1.71 mg/kg/h in group I, and 7.47 +/- 1.76 in group II (p = 0.88; not significant) and the neuromuscular recovery time 56.12 +/- 34.55 m' and 49.48 +/- 40.50 m' respectively (p = 0.53; not significant). The cardiocirculatory parameters have been compared at the time of induction, surgical incision and for all the operation time, reporting every undesired effect. The awakening has been monitored until 15 m' from the interruption of propofol infusion. The data obtained don't permit to observe significant differences with regard to analgesia, neuromuscular block and awakening time. Therefore the authors put the question of the real necessity to use nitrous oxide, when it has utilized an efficient intravenous anaesthetic as the propofol has proved to be.
作者比较了两组各31例患者，一组接受丙泊酚 - O₂/N₂O麻醉（I组），另一组接受丙泊酚 - O₂/空气麻醉（II组）。在镇痛剂量保持恒定的情况下，对平均麻醉剂量和神经肌肉恢复时间进行了评估。I组丙泊酚的平均消耗量（不包括诱导剂量2mg/kg）为7.41±1.71mg/kg/h，II组为7.47±1.76mg/kg/h（p = 0.88；无显著差异），神经肌肉恢复时间分别为56.12±34.55分钟和49.48±40.50分钟（p = 0.53；无显著差异）。在诱导时、手术切口时以及整个手术过程中比较了心血管参数，并记录了所有不良反应。监测苏醒情况直至丙泊酚输注停止后15分钟。所获得的数据在镇痛、神经肌肉阻滞和苏醒时间方面未显示出显著差异。因此，作者提出了一个问题，即当已经证明丙泊酚是一种有效的静脉麻醉剂时，使用氧化亚氮的实际必要性。
