Driver I, Wilson C, Wiltshire S, Mills P, Howard-Griffin R
Department of Anaesthesia, Ipswich Hospital, Suffolk, UK.
Anaesthesia. 1997 Jul;52(7):698-700. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1997.az0130b.x.
Conditions for insertion of the laryngeal mask airway were assessed in 70 unpremedicated patients comparing the co-induction with midazolam-alfentanil-thiopentone and midazolam-alfentanil-propofol. Following pre-induction doses of midazolam 0.04 mg.kg-1 and alfentanil 10 micrograms.kg-1, patients received equipotent doses of either thiopentone or propofol. Whilst jaw relaxation and ease of laryngeal mask insertion were similar between the two groups, patients receiving propofol were less likely to have undesired responses requiring additional boluses of induction agent (p < 0.05). We conclude that, using these doses, propofol is superior to thiopentone for laryngeal mask airway insertion when using a co-induction technique.
在70例未使用术前药的患者中评估喉罩置入的条件,比较咪达唑仑-阿芬太尼-硫喷妥钠和咪达唑仑-阿芬太尼-丙泊酚联合诱导的情况。在给予咪达唑仑0.04mg·kg⁻¹和阿芬太尼10μg·kg⁻¹的诱导前剂量后,患者接受等效剂量的硫喷妥钠或丙泊酚。虽然两组之间的下颌松弛和喉罩置入的难易程度相似,但接受丙泊酚的患者出现需要额外推注诱导剂的不良反应的可能性较小(p<0.05)。我们得出结论,使用这些剂量时,在联合诱导技术中,丙泊酚用于喉罩置入优于硫喷妥钠。