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 Similar articles in PubMed
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gold, M. I.
Right arrow Articles by Herrington, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gold, M. I.
Right arrow Articles by Herrington, C.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 34, 478-483, Copyright © 1987 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society

ARTICLES

A controlled investigation of propofol, thiopentone and methohexitone

MI Gold, EC Abraham and C Herrington
Department of Anesthesiology, University of Miami School of Medicine, Florida.

This was a randomized study of 180 ASA physical status I and II patients, 60 in each group who received propofol (PROP), 2.5 mg . kg-1, thiopentone (THIO), 4 mg . kg-1, or methohexitone (METH), 1.5 mg . kg-1. Control values, followed by changes after induction and during a 3-min delay before intubation were recorded for the following parameters: heart rate (HR), systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP, DBP), respiratory rate (RR), end-tidal CO2 (PETCO2), and induction time (IT). In addition, the incidence of adverse reactions and time for recovery from anaesthesia were noted. The IT (mean +/- SE) was 35 +/- 1 sec for propofol, 35 +/- 1.2 sec for thiopentone and 34 +/- 1.4 sec for methohexitone. Ninety-three per cent of the PROP group fell asleep with one dose and required no additional doses. Fifty per cent of each of the THIO and METH groups required additional agents (p less than 0.05). METH was associated with the highest elevation in HR, PROP the least (p less than 0.05). PROP was associated with the most decrease in SBP and DBP and in addition respiratory depression (p less than 0.05). The incidence of injection pain or excitatory activity was equal in the three groups with the exception that 14 patients who received METH developed hiccoughs while none did in the other groups. PROP was associated with the most rapid recovery, particularly with respect to the orientation time. We conclude that PROP is an effective alternative to barbiturate induction and that the published recommended doses of THIO and METH are often ineffective.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed.Home page
G Naulaers, E Deloof, C Vanhole, E Kola, and H Devlieger
Use of methohexital for elective intubation in neonates
Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed., July 1, 1997; 77(1): 61F - 64.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1987 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.