Ashworth J, Smith I
Department of Anaesthesia, North Staffordshire Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.
Anesth Analg. 1998 Aug;87(2):312-8. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199808000-00014.
Desflurane is a potentially useful anesthetic for ambulatory surgery, but it has had limited evaluation in spontaneously breathing patients. After the induction of anesthesia with propofol and laryngeal mask insertion, 90 patients were randomized to receive isoflurane (0.25%-1%), propofol (50-200 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)), or desflurane (1.4%-6%) for anesthetic maintenance. Respiratory complications were uncommon; only six patients coughed (three who received isoflurane, one who received propofol, and two who received desflurane), and no anesthetic produced significant respiratory depression. Purposeful movement was significantly more common with propofol (19 patients; 63%) compared with isoflurane (7 patients; 23%) or desflurane (2 patients; 6.7%), but no patient had recall. Emergence times were similar in the isoflurane, propofol, and desflurane groups (5.1 +/- 2.3, 5.6 +/- 3.1, and 4.4 +/- 1.4 min, respectively). Later recovery end points and pain and sedation visual analog scale scores did not differ among groups. Overall, 85 patients (94%) were free from postoperative nausea and vomiting. Desflurane produced few respiratory complications in spontaneously breathing ambulatory patients but offered no improvement in emergence or recovery compared with isoflurane. Propofol also did not reduce recovery times or side effects; however, it was more difficult to maintain an adequate depth of anesthesia. We conclude that neither desflurane nor propofol offered any major advantages over the older anesthetic, isoflurane, under the conditions of our study.
The new inhaled anesthetic desflurane is acceptable in spontaneously breathing outpatients despite its known ability to irritate the airway. The i.v. anesthetic propofol was associated with more patient movement (without awareness) during surgery. Neither anesthetic conferred any clinically significant advantages over the older inhaled drug, isoflurane.
地氟醚对门诊手术而言是一种潜在有用的麻醉剂,但在自主呼吸患者中的评估有限。在用丙泊酚诱导麻醉并插入喉罩后,90例患者被随机分组,分别接受异氟醚(0.25%-1%)、丙泊酚(50-200微克×千克⁻¹×分钟⁻¹)或地氟醚(1.4%-6%)进行麻醉维持。呼吸并发症并不常见;只有6例患者咳嗽(3例接受异氟醚,1例接受丙泊酚,2例接受地氟醚),且没有一种麻醉剂产生明显的呼吸抑制。与异氟醚(7例患者;23%)或地氟醚(2例患者;6.7%)相比,丙泊酚组的自主运动明显更常见(19例患者;63%),但没有患者有术中知晓。异氟醚、丙泊酚和地氟醚组的苏醒时间相似(分别为5.1±2.3、5.6±3.1和4.4±1.4分钟)。后期恢复终点以及疼痛和镇静视觉模拟量表评分在各组之间没有差异。总体而言,85例患者(94%)无术后恶心和呕吐。地氟醚在自主呼吸的门诊患者中产生的呼吸并发症较少,但与异氟醚相比,在苏醒或恢复方面并无改善。丙泊酚也未缩短恢复时间或减少副作用;然而,维持足够的麻醉深度更困难。我们得出结论,在我们的研究条件下,地氟醚和丙泊酚与较老的麻醉剂异氟醚相比均无任何主要优势。
新型吸入麻醉剂地氟醚在自主呼吸的门诊患者中是可接受的,尽管其已知有刺激气道的能力。静脉麻醉剂丙泊酚与手术期间更多的患者自主运动(无意识)相关。这两种麻醉剂与较老的吸入药物异氟醚相比均未带来任何临床上显著的优势。