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: 3.47). 01/1996; 81(6):1186-90. DOI: 10.1097/00000539-199512000-00012
Source: PubMed


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)

Download full-text


Available from: Paul F White, Apr 17, 2015
65 Reads
    • "Higher intra-abdominal pressure following carboperitoneum tends to collapse the major abdominal veins and decreases venous return, thus leading to a drop in preload and cardiac output.[4] Sevoflurane and desflurane provided similar intraoperative conditions during the maintenance period.[5] The present study also demonstrates that both, desflurane and sevoflurane, provide comparable hemodynamic stability in morbidly obese patients for prolonged laparoscopic surgical procedures. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Morbidly obese patients are prone for intraoperative hemodynamic disturbances and postoperative airway complications. Comparison of intraoperative hemodynamics and postoperative recovery characteristics of desflurane versus sevoflurane in morbidly obese patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Randomized controlled trial. After institutional ethics committee approval and written informed consent, 40 morbidly obese patients (BMI > 35 kg/m(2)) were randomized to receive desflurane or sevoflurane as part of a standardized general anesthesia technique. Volatile anesthetic concentration was titrated to maintain electroencephalographic bispectral index score (BIS) in the range of 40-60. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded preoperatively, at induction and intubation, then at regular intervals. After extubation, early recovery was recorded by time to emergence and orientation to time and place. In post anesthesia care unit, intermediate recovery was assessed by modified Aldrete Score and Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST). Intraoperative MAP and HR did not differ between the two groups (P > 0.05). The time to response to painful stimuli, obeying verbal commands and spontaneous eye opening was shorter (P = 0.001) and modified Aldrete Score was higher after desflurane anesthesia than after sevoflurane anesthesia (P = 0.049). DSST also returned towards normal faster after desflurane (28.50 ± 6.30 min vs. 35.0 ± 5.62 min, P = 0.03). Both desflurane and sevoflurane produce similar hemodynamic changes but the immediate and intermediate recovery was significantly faster after desflurane thus contributing to fast tracking and early discharge of patients.
    Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology 03/2013; 29(1):36-40. DOI:10.4103/0970-9185.105792
  • Source
    • "Nathanson et al. [19] compared the two inhalational anesthetics (desflurane and sevoflurane) in outpatients. They reported that the group induced with desflurane had significantly higher HR compared to the group induced with sevoflurane, which was what the results of the present study also showed. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: For ophthalmic surgery anesthesia, it is vital that intraocular pressure (IOP) is controlled. Most anesthetic drugs affect IOP dose-dependently, and inhalational anesthetics dose-dependently decrease IOP. In this study, we compared the effects of desflurane and sevoflurane on IOP and hemodynamics in pediatric ophthalmic surgery. Thirty eight pediatric patients from the age of 6 to 15 years, who were scheduled for strabismus surgery and entropion surgery, were randomized to be administered desflurane (group D, n = 19) or sevoflurane (group S, n = 19). IOPs and hemodynamic parameters were measured before induction of anesthesia (B), after induction but immediately before intubation (AI), 1 min after intubation (T1), 3 min after intubation (T3), and 5 min after intubation (T5). The mean arterial pressure (MAP) at T1 and heart rates (HRs) at T1 and T3 were significantly higher in group D than those in group S. There was no significant difference between the groups in IOP, cardiac index (CI) and stroke index (SI). There was a significant difference within the group in IOP, SI, MAP and HR. There was no significant difference within the group in CI. There was no significant difference between the groups in IOP and hemodynamic parameters. The two anesthetic agents maintained IOP and hemodynamic parameters in the normal range during anesthetic induction.
    Korean journal of anesthesiology 02/2013; 64(2):117-21. DOI:10.4097/kjae.2013.64.2.117
    • "The availability of less soluble inhalation anaesthetics such as sevoflurane and desflurane made us rethink about the selection of volatile anaesthetics for outpatient surgical procedures. Given the low blood: gas partition coefficient of sevoflurane and desflurane, faster emergence from anaesthesia is expected compared to traditional inhalation anaesthetics.[3] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Both sevoflurane and desflurane have shorter emergence times compared to isoflurane based anaesthesia. Because of its pharmacological properties, desflurane appears to yield a rapid early and intermediate recovery compared with sevoflurane. The aim of this study was to assess the maintenance and emergence characteristics after anaesthesia with sevoflurane or desflurane. One hundred female patients scheduled to undergo daycare laparoscopic gynaecological surgery were enrolled for this prospective study. Patients were randomised into two groups to receive either desflurane [group I (D); n = 50] or sevoflurane [group II (S); n = 50] for maintenance of anaesthesia. The demographic data and the duration of procedure were comparable in both the groups. The early recovery time was shorter after maintenance of anaesthesia with desflurane compared with sevoflurane. However, this faster early recovery failed to lead to early readiness for home discharge. The intraoperative haemodynamic characteristics were comparable with both sevoflurane and desflurane. Both sevoflurane and desflurane provide a similar time to home readiness despite a faster early recovery with desflurane. The intraoperative haemodynamics are similar with both the agents.
    Indian journal of anaesthesia 03/2011; 55(1):36-42. DOI:10.4103/0019-5049.76604
Show more