Fulltext

Propofol 1% versus propofol 2% in children undergoing minor ENT surgery

Pellégrini, M. ; Lysakowski, C. ; Dumont, L. ; Borgeat, A. ; Tassonyi, E.

In: British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2003, vol. 90, no. 3, p. 375-377

Ajouter à la liste personnelle
    Titre
    • Propofol 1% versus propofol 2% in children undergoing minor ENT surgery
    Auteur
    • Pellégrini, M.. Division of Anaesthesiology, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pharmacology and Surgical Intensive Care, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
    • Lysakowski, C.. Division of Anaesthesiology, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pharmacology and Surgical Intensive Care, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
    • Dumont, L.. Division of Anaesthesiology, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pharmacology and Surgical Intensive Care, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
    • Borgeat, A.. University Clinic, Balgrist Hospital, Zürich, Switzerland
    • Tassonyi, E.. Division of Anaesthesiology, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pharmacology and Surgical Intensive Care, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
    Type de document
    • Postprint
    Langue
    • Anglais
    Publié dans
    • British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2003, vol. 90, no. 3, p. 375-377. Oxford University Press
    Autre version électronique
    Identifiant OAI-PMH
    • oai:doc.rero.ch:289665
    Summary
    Background. The induction characteristics of propofol 1% and 2% were compared in children undergoing ENT surgery, in a prospective, randomized, double‐blind study. Methods. One hundred and eight children received propofol 1% (n=55) or 2% (n=53) for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia. For induction, propofol 4mgkg-1 was injected at a constant rate (1200mlh-1), supplemented with alfentanil. Intubating conditions without the use of a neuromuscular blocking agent were scored. Results. Pain on injection occurred in 9% and 21% of patients after propofol 1% and 2%, respectively (P=0.09). Loss of consciousness was more rapid with propofol 2% compared with propofol 1% (47s vs 54s; P=0.02). Spontaneous movements during induction occurred in 22% and 34% (P=0.18), and intubating conditions were satisfactory in 87% and 96% (P=0.19) of children receiving propofol 1% or 2%, respectively. There were no differences between the two groups in respect of haemodynamic changes or adverse events. Conclusions. For the end‐points tested, propofol 1% and propofol 2% are similar for induction of anaesthesia in children undergoing minor ENT surgery. Br J Anaesth 2003: 90: 375-7