CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by WYNANDS, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by FOX, G. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by WYNANDS, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by FOX, G. S.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 13, 505-512, Copyright © 1966 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society

A Clinical Comparison of Propanidid and Thiopentone as Induction Agents to General Anaesthesia

J. E. WYNANDS M.D., C.M.1 and G. S. FOX M.D., F.R.C.P.(C)1

1 Department of Anaesthesia, Royal Victoria Hospital, Montreal, Quebec

Experience with 200 cases, using 2.5 per cent thiopentone as an induction agent in 100 cases, and 5 per cent propanidid (FBA 1420) in the remainder, have been presented. Patients were compared during the induction, peroperative, emergence, and postoperative periods. A greater degree of hypotension, tachycardia, hyperpnoea, and apnoea were seen during induction with propanidid. Postoperatively, patients induced with thiopentone were drowsier, but had a smaller incidence of headache, nausea, and vomiting than those induced with propanidid. Patients in, both groups returned to activity in comparable time periods.

Note:

Presented at the Annual Meeting, Canadian Anaesthetists' Society, Banff, Alberta, June 1966.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1966 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.