Article

Sevoflurane versus desflurane for outpatient anesthesia: a comparison of maintenance and recovery profiles.

Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas 75235-9068, USA.
Anesthesia & Analgesia (Impact Factor: 3.42). 01/1996; 81(6):1186-90.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The recovery characteristics of desflurane and sevoflurane were compared when used for maintenance of ambulatory anesthesia. After obtaining informed consent, 42 healthy, unpremedicated women undergoing laparoscopic sterilization procedures were studied. Anesthesia was induced with propofol, 1.5-2.0 mg/kg, and maintained with either desflurane 3%-6% (n = 21) or sevoflurane 1%-2% (n = 21) with 60% nitrous oxide in oxygen. Intraoperative analgesia and neuromuscular block was achieved using fentanyl and vecuronium, respectively. The inhaled anesthetics were titrated to achieve an adequate clinical "depth of anesthesia" and to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) within 20% of the preinduction baseline values. Visual analog scales (VAS) and the digit-symbol substitution test (DSST) were performed preoperatively and at 30-min intervals during the recovery period. There were no differences between the two groups in the total doses of propofol, fentanyl, or vecuronium. Heart rate (HR) values were lower in the sevoflurane group during the induction-to-incision period. However, HR and MAP were otherwise similar during the maintenance and recovery periods. Use of desflurane led to a more rapid emergence (4.8 +/- 2.4 vs 7.8 +/- 3.8 min) and shorter time to extubation (5.1 +/- 2.2 vs 8.2 +/- 4.2 min) compared to sevoflurane (mean values +/- SD). Intermediate recovery times, postoperative VAS and DSST scores, and side effects were similar in the two treatment groups. Although sevoflurane was associated with a slower emergence from anesthesia than desflurane after laparoscopic surgery, recovery of cognitive function and discharge times were similar in the two anesthetic groups. Thus, it would appear that sevoflurane is an acceptable alternative to desflurane for maintenance of outpatient anesthesia.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

0 Bookmarks
 · 
76 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: as minimal postoperative side‑effects and rapid and full recovery. The aim of this randomized study was to compare the postoperative recovery time of sevoflurane and desflurane and to observe the effects of anesthesia on mental, psychomotor and cognitive functions and pain in outpatients undergoing arthroscopic surgery. Patients and Methods: This study included 40 American Society of Anesthesiologists I‑II patients who were divided into two groups via sealed envelopes. For maintenance of anesthesia, a mixture of 66% N2O and 33% O2 and 4–7% desflurane was used in Group D, and a mixture of 66% N2O and 33% O2 and 1–2.5% sevoflurane was used in Group S. The modified Aldrete score (MAS) was evaluated postoperatively at time points determined previously. An MAS of 8 or higher was considered to indicate alertness. Mental and psychomotor functions of the patients were evaluated using the short cognitive examination (SCE), and postoperative pain levels were evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS). Results: There was no difference between the groups in terms of demographic data (P > 0.05). The mean time to reach MAS 8, eye‑opening, and orientation were higher in Group S as compared to Group D (P < 0.01). The mean MAS initially and at 5 and 10 min was higher in Group D as compared to Group S (P < 0.001). The mean SCE at 5 and 15 min was higher in Group D as compared to Group S (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of VAS scores (P > 0.05). Conclusion: It has been determined that desflurane provided better quality and more rapid recovery than sevoflurane, and the return of cognitive functions in the early postoperative period was faster. In conclusion, both agents can apparently be used safely in outpatient anesthetic procedures.
    09/2014; 8(3):367-371. DOI:10.4103/0259-1162.143151
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Due to modern surgical and anesthesia techniques, many patients undergoing small or even medium surgical procedures will recover within minutes and can then be discharged after a few hours of monitoring. Aside from an optimized surgical technique, a precise and differentiated anesthesia concept is needed to guarantee rapid recovery and home readiness. Nowadays, remifentanil-propofol represents the standard regime in ambulatory anesthesia. The use of alfentanil, desfluran or sevofluran is also possible whereas other intravenous or inhaled anesthetics or other opioids are rarely used. If endotracheal intubation is necessary, a reduced intubating dose of neuromuscular blockers (NMB), such as mivacurium, atracurium and rocuronium, i.e. 1-1.5-times the 95 % effective dose (ED95) is a good possibility to accelerate neuromuscular recovery while still having acceptable intubation conditions. Due to its limitations and contraindications, succinylcholine is not the first choice but may be used in non-fasting patients in need of urgent (ambulatory) surgery, e.g. in bleeding women undergoing dilation and curettage. Even with these reduced dosages monitoring of neuromuscular recovery is crucial and should be applied to all patients when NMBs are used. Furthermore, patients should receive a risk-adapted postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis, e.g. with 4 mg dexamethasone and 4 mg ondansetron. Postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) should be anticipated by a new risk score and prophylaxis or treatment should be initiated. For postoperative pain relief, local or regional anesthesia techniques, such as infiltration, field or nerve blocks should be applied where possible. In addition, non-opioid analgesics are the basic treatment while longer-lasting opioids are only necessary for some patients.
    Der Anaesthesist 08/2014; DOI:10.1007/s00101-014-2364-1 · 0.74 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A classic general anesthesia is performed by induction with an intravenous hypnotic (such as propofol) and maintenance with a volatile anesthetic (such as sevoflurane). The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of a propofol/sevoflurane maintenance regimen with that of a sevoflurane regimen on recovery profiles. One hundred and sixty patients, who were ASA 1 or 2, 45-65 years of age, and scheduled for elective gastrointestinal surgery under combined general/epidural anesthesia, were allocated randomly to receive the sevoflurane maintenance regimen (group S, n = 80) or sevoflurane/propofol regimen (group SP, n = 80). After induction, anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane in group S and sevoflurane with propofol (1.2 μg/ml target plasma concentration) in group SP. Bispectral index (BIS) values were maintained within 40-60 during the maintenance. Time to extubation, incidence of serious coughing and agitation, and other recovery characteristics were evaluated during emergence. The time to awakening and extubation in group SP were 7.2 ± 2 min and 8.0 ± 1.8 min, respectively, which were shorter than those results in group S (12.3 ± 1.5 and 12.8 ± 1.6 min, respectively) (P < 0.05). The incidence of serious coughing and agitation in SP (30 % and 25 %) was lower than that of group S (68 % and 53 %) (P < 0.05). BIS value, pain score, requirements of analgesics and antiemetics in the PACU, and length of stay in the PACU were similar in the two groups. Compared to sevoflurane maintenance, coadministration of propofol and sevoflurane provides faster awakening and extubation with a low incidence of emergence coughing and agitation.
    Journal of Anesthesia 02/2014; 28(5). DOI:10.1007/s00540-014-1803-0 · 1.12 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
1 Download