Valtonen M, Kanto J, Klossner J
Department of Anaesthesiology, University of Turku, Finland.
Can J Anaesth. 1988 Sep;35(5):479-83. doi: 10.1007/BF03026895.
Propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol) 2.5 mg.kg-1 IV was compared with thiopentone 5 mg.kg-1 IV as an induction agent in anaesthesia for elective cardioversion. Thirty-five patients (ASA physical status II-III) with atrial fibrillation were included. Thirty patients were randomized to receive propofol or thiopentone. Five patients were treated twice during the study period and anaesthetized with both agents (the first treatment according to the random order and the second with the agent not used on the first occasion). The induction characteristics and the haemodynamic response for propofol and thiopentone were similar. The success rate of cardioversion did not differ between the groups. Recovery times were shorter after propofol than after thiopentone with respect to ocular muscle balance, central integration and subjective sedation of patients. The incidence of side-effects did not differ between the groups. None of the patients reported any awareness during the procedure. All five patients treated twice (with both agents) assessed the anaesthetic procedure with propofol as being more pleasant than that with thiopentone.
将丙泊酚（2,6 - 二异丙基苯酚）2.5毫克/千克静脉注射与硫喷妥钠5毫克/千克静脉注射作为择期心脏复律麻醉诱导剂进行比较。纳入了35例美国麻醉医师协会（ASA）身体状况为II - III级的房颤患者。30例患者被随机分配接受丙泊酚或硫喷妥钠。5例患者在研究期间接受了两次治疗，分别使用两种药物进行麻醉（第一次治疗按随机顺序进行，第二次使用第一次未使用的药物）。丙泊酚和硫喷妥钠的诱导特征及血流动力学反应相似。两组间心脏复律成功率无差异。在患者的眼肌平衡、中枢整合及主观镇静方面，丙泊酚后的恢复时间比硫喷妥钠后的短。两组间副作用发生率无差异。所有患者在手术过程中均未报告有任何知晓情况。所有5例接受两次治疗（使用两种药物）的患者认为使用丙泊酚的麻醉过程比使用硫喷妥钠的更舒适。
