Kay B, Healy T E
Postgrad Med J. 1985;61 Suppl 3:108-14.
In two non-concurrent investigations, propofol was compared with methohexitone and with Althesin as an intravenous anaesthetic for cystoscopy in outpatients. In the comparison between propofol and methohexitone the 60 patients also received alfentanil in similar dosage; in comparison with Althesin (43 patients) the Cremophor formulation of propofol was used. During induction of anaesthesia propofol caused fewer excitatory effects than either methohexitone or Althesin, and less pain than methohexitone. There was no difference in the incidence of apnoea caused by propofol 1.5 mg/kg and Althesin 0.05 ml/kg, or propofol 2 mg/kg and methohexitone 1.5 mg/kg. Induction of anaesthesia by propofol was faster than that by Althesin. The use of alfentanil 7 micrograms/kg at induction of anaesthesia apparently increases the incidence of apnoea seen at that time and during maintenance of anaesthesia, but an overall dose of approximately 1 mg reduces the mean dose of propofol required from 0.459 mg/kg/min to 0.192 mg/kg/min and improves the quality of anaesthesia. During maintenance of anaesthesia propofol produced less myoclonia and movement than Althesin, and fewer hiccups than methohexitone, but the mean minimum systolic arterial pressure observed in the propofol group was less than that seen in the methohexitone group. Immediate recovery of consciousness was faster and better after propofol than methohexitone, and fewer complications were seen after propofol than Althesin. Recovery of coordination and perception, tested by the digit substitution test, was faster after propofol than methohexitone. Exact comparisons of recovery of ocular tone (Maddox Wing test) between the anaesthetics were not possible as both Althesin and methohexitone rendered some patients incapable of taking the tests in the early post-operative period. In response to a take-home questionnaire, patients stated that they were drowsy for a shorter time, and ate earlier after propofol than after methohexitone. No patient who received propofol vomited or was nauseated and all would wish to receive the same anaesthesia again. The studies suggest that propofol is preferable to both Althesin and methohexitone for intravenous anaesthesia for cystoscopy in outpatients.
在两项非同期研究中,将丙泊酚分别与甲己炔巴比妥以及阿尔thesin(Althesin)进行比较,作为门诊患者膀胱镜检查的静脉麻醉剂。在丙泊酚与甲己炔巴比妥的比较中,60例患者还接受了相似剂量的阿芬太尼;在与阿尔thesin(43例患者)的比较中,使用了丙泊酚的聚氧乙烯蓖麻油制剂。在麻醉诱导期间,丙泊酚引起的兴奋作用比甲己炔巴比妥或阿尔thesin都少,且疼痛比甲己炔巴比妥轻。丙泊酚1.5mg/kg与阿尔thesin 0.05ml/kg,或丙泊酚2mg/kg与甲己炔巴比妥1.5mg/kg引起呼吸暂停的发生率无差异。丙泊酚诱导麻醉比阿尔thesin快。麻醉诱导时使用7微克/千克阿芬太尼显然会增加此时及麻醉维持期间呼吸暂停的发生率,但总剂量约1毫克可将所需丙泊酚的平均剂量从0.459毫克/千克/分钟降至0.192毫克/千克/分钟,并改善麻醉质量。在麻醉维持期间,丙泊酚产生的肌阵挛和运动比阿尔thesin少,呃逆比甲己炔巴比妥少,但丙泊酚组观察到的平均最低收缩动脉压低于甲己炔巴比妥组。丙泊酚麻醉后意识即刻恢复比甲己炔巴比妥更快、更好,且丙泊酚后出现的并发症比阿尔thesin少。通过数字替代试验测试,丙泊酚后协调和感知功能的恢复比甲己炔巴比妥快。由于阿尔thesin和甲己炔巴比妥都使一些患者在术后早期无法进行测试,因此无法对麻醉剂之间的眼肌张力恢复(马多克斯翼试验)进行精确比较。根据一份带回家的调查问卷,患者表示,与甲己炔巴比妥相比,使用丙泊酚后他们困倦的时间更短,进食更早。接受丙泊酚的患者无一呕吐或恶心,所有患者都希望再次接受相同的麻醉。这些研究表明,在门诊患者膀胱镜检查的静脉麻醉中,丙泊酚比阿尔thesin和甲己炔巴比妥更可取。