Issues Regarding Propofol Concentrations within the Clinical Range

Gleason, N. R.; Emala, Charles W.

doi:10.1097/aln.0b013e3181ff7a1e

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 8 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, this method has a brief operating time and limits the amount of ocular tissue manipulation. Maintaining the stability of IOP, which needs to stay within the range of 10-21 mmHg, is crucial to ensuring the benefits of eye surgery [13][14][15] . During anesthesia, the patient should refrain from coughing, restlessness, nausea, and vomiting to stop the contents of the eye from seeping out of the incision.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of urapidil and propofol on intraocular pressure and perioperative hemodynamics in patients undergoing anesthesia and extubation

Vardhan,

Rao

2020

Int. J. Med. Anesthesiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objective: To contrast the effects of urapidil and propofol on intraocular pressure and hemodynamics in patients undergoing anesthesia and extubation. Methods: 86 surgical patients (Class: ASA I-Ⅱ) were divided into groups at random and given propofol (=43) or urapidil (=43). There was no discernible difference between the two groups in terms of their gender, age, body mass, length of surgery, or anesthetic dosage (p>0.05). Propofol (1.5 mg/kg) and urapidil (2.5 mg/kg) were administered to the patients in the appropriate groups. The two medications were diluted to a volume of 8 mL each using normal saline. After that, patients received gradual intravenous injections of the medications. Following therapy, the patients underwent tracheal extubation, rapid suction, and ten minutes of oxygen mask wear. Using double-blind techniques, we measured the intraocular pressure (IOP), heart rate (HR), pH, PaO2, PaCO2, SaO2, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP), as well as heart rate (HR), during the suction and five and ten minutes following the extubation. During the extubation, the total recovery time for the restless patients was also noted (on command, they could open their eyes and shake their hands). A professional statistical program called SPSS 15.0 was used to evaluate the data. Results: Following extubation, the propofol group saw significantly fewer cases of cough, restlessness, and glossocoma than the urapidil group (p<0.05). Hypotension, laryngospasm, or severe respiratory depression were not observed during any of the episodes. Between the two groups, there was no statistically significant difference in recovery times (p>0.05). The BP and HR in the propofol group were considerably lower than those before providing propofol (p<0.05) and had a significant difference when compared with those in the urapidil group (p<0.05), although there was no significant difference between them during extubation and following induction. The urapidil group's blood pressure did not noticeably rise during aspiration or extubation in comparison to preinduction. Following urapidil administration, the HR of the urapidil group showed few changes and was clearly higher than it was prior to induction. In the propofol group, aspiration and extubation stimulation resulted in less cough and agitation than in the urapidil group (p<0.05). When compared to preinduction, the IOP of the propofol group did not clearly increase upon extubation, whereas the urpidil group experienced a significant (p<0.05) increase in IOP following extubation. There was no discernible difference between the two groups' changes in these indicators (p>0.05). Conclusion: Propofol prevents the cardiovascular and stress reactions better than urapidil, and it also causes an increase in intraocular pressure (IOP) in ophthalmic patients during emergence and extubation. Furthermore, it doesn't affect the patient's ability to heal.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%