Comparison between halothane and sevoflurane for adult vital capacity induction

Hall, Judith Elizabeth; Oldham, T. A.; Stewart, Julie; Harmer, M.

doi:10.1093/bja/79.3.285

Cited by 20 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We chose to use sevoflurane as our comparator anaesthetic because it can be used satisfactorily to induce anaesthesia in adults [7,8], allowing a comparison between 'pure' inhalation and intravenous anaesthesia, as well as greatly facilitating a blinded comparison. Although halothane could potentially have been used in place of sevoflurane, it is associated with a high incidence of adverse cardiac events during induction of anaesthesia in adults [10] and also has an unsuitable recovery profile for day-case anaesthesia.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Target‐controlled propofol vs. sevoflurane: a double‐blind, randomised comparison in day‐case anaesthesia

Smith

Thwaites

1999

Anaesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryWe compared target-controlled propofol with sevoflurane in a randomised, double-blind study in 61 day-case patients. Anaesthesia was induced with a propofol target of 8 mg.ml ¹1 or 8% sevoflurane, reduced to 4 mg.ml ¹1 and 3%, respectively, after laryngeal mask insertion and subsequently titrated to clinical signs. Mean (SD) times to unconsciousness and laryngeal mask insertion were significantly shorter with propofol [50 (9) s and 116 (33) s, respectively] than with sevoflurane [73 (14) s and 146 (29) s; p < 0.0001 and p ¼ 0.0003, respectively]; however, these differences were not apparent to the blinded observer. Propofol was associated with a higher incidence of intra-operative movement (55 vs. 10%; p ¼ 0.0003), necessitating more adjustments to the delivered anaesthetic. Emergence was faster after sevoflurane [5.3 (2.2) min vs. 7.1 (3.7) min; p ¼ 0.027], but the inhaled anaesthetic was associated with more nausea and vomiting (30 vs. 3%; p ¼ 0.006), which delayed discharge [258 (102) min vs. 193 (68) min; p ¼ 0.005]. Direct costs were lower with sevoflurane but nausea would have increased indirect costs. Patient satisfaction was high (Ն 90%) with both techniques. In conclusion, both techniques had advantages and disadvantages for day-case anaesthesia.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Target‐controlled propofol vs. sevoflurane: a double‐blind, randomised comparison in day‐case anaesthesia

Smith

Thwaites

1999

Anaesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the present study, although most patients required additional breaths, induction times in our elderly patients were similar to those reported previously in young volunteers and patients. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Severe respiratory adverse events were not observed with high concentration sevoflurane induction. Although there were a few patients with a cough or hiccup associated with sevoflurane, our findings are similar to previous reports focusing on young volunteers and patients.…”

Section: Patient Satisfactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although there were a few patients with a cough or hiccup associated with sevoflurane, our findings are similar to previous reports focusing on young volunteers and patients. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Furthermore, breath holding and a decrease in SpO 2 below 96% occurred in two patients who received an iv induction, but not in patients who received high concentration sevoflurane induction.…”

Section: Patient Satisfactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sevoflurane for inhalation induction has improved the conditions of anesthetic induction in comparison with other volatile agents. [1][2][3] Vital capacity inhalation of a high concentration of sevoflurane has been described as useful and safe. [1][2][3][4][5] Compared to the conventional inhalation induction technique using a gradual increase of concentration, a high concentration sevoflurane induction produced a rapid induction and reduced adverse effects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[1][2][3][4][5] Compared to the conventional inhalation induction technique using a gradual increase of concentration, a high concentration sevoflurane induction produced a rapid induction and reduced adverse effects. 4 Furthermore, sevoflurane induction provided additional advantages such as good cardiovascular stability, 3,6,7 smooth transition between induction and maintenance, 6,8 and rapid onset of non-depolarizing muscle relaxant 9 compared with iv induction.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

L’induction de l’anesthésie au sévoflurane, avec une réduction graduelle de la concentration, est bien tolérée par les patients âgés

Yamaguchi

Ikeda

Wake

et al. 2003

Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

P Pu ur rp po os se e: : To establish the appropriate inhalation induction technique using a high concentration of sevoflurane in the elderly.M Me et th ho od ds s: : Forty-five patients, aged 70-79-yr-old, were randomly divided into three groups: 1) Group I: anesthesia was induced with propofol 2 mg·kg -1 and sevoflurane 2% (n = 15); 2) Group II: anesthesia was induced with a three-minute inhalation of sevoflurane 8%; 3) Group III: anesthesia was induced with inhalation of sevoflurane using a gradual reduction technique (8, 6, 4% for each minute). In Groups II and III, a modified vital capacity inhalation induction was performed. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) and oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) were measured continuously during induction. In addition, induction time and adverse events related to anesthetic induction were recorded. R Re es su ul lt ts s: : The induction time in Group I was significantly shorter than that in Groups II and III (P < 0.05). However, there was no difference in the induction time between Groups II and III. In Groups II and III, the majority of patients required additional breaths. In comparison with the other groups, stability of MAP was maintained in Group III. The variations of HR in all groups were small. During induction, no patient experienced a decrease in SpO 2 below 96%, except for two patients in Group I. Severe respiratory adverse events were not observed. Other adverse events were similar in all groups.C Co on nc cl lu us si io on ns s: : Our results suggest that a high concentration sevoflurane induction using a gradual reduction technique may be an acceptable alternative to standard iv induction in elderly patients. II et III (P < 0,05 Objectif : Réaliser la technique appropriée d'induction par inhalation en utilisant une forte concentration de sévoflurane chez des patients âgés. Méthode : Quarante-cinq patients de 70-79 ans, ont été répartis de façon aléatoire en trois groupes : 1) groupe I : anesthésie induite avec 2 mg·kg -1 de propofol et du sévoflurane à 2 % (n = 15) ; 2) groupe II : anesthésie induite avec l'inhalation de sévoflurane à 8 % pendant 3 min ; 3) groupe III : anesthésie induite avec l'inhalation de sévoflurane selon la technique de réduction graduelle de la concentration (8, 6, 4 % pour chaque minute). Dans les groupes II et III, une induction par inhalation, avec modification de la capacité vitale, a été réalisée. La tension artérielle moyenne (TAM), la fréquence cardiaque (FR) et la saturation du sang en oxygène (SpO 2 ) ont été mesurées en continu pendant l'induction. De plus, le temps nécessaire à l'induction et les événements indésirables reliés à l'induction anesthésique ont été notés. Résultats : Le temps d'induction a été significativement plus court dans le groupe I que dans les groupes

show abstract