Journals / PTT Hastanesi Tıp Dergisi / 2003 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 3

Comparison of inductions with propofol and midazolam for laryngeal mask insertions

Larenjeal maske uygulamalarında midazolam ve propofol indüksiyonlarının karşılaştırılması

Pages
127–130
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, it was found that the mean arterial pressures were significantly decreased in the propofol group in the first, third, and fifth minutes following induction (p<0.05).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: We evaluated the effects of propofol and midazolam on laryngeal mask (LM) insertion and hemodynamic parameters.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Patients and Methods: Two-hundred ASA l-ll patients aged 15 to 65 years were randomly divided into two groups equal in size before surgery of short duration.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, it was found that the mean arterial pressures were significantly decreased in the propofol group in the first, third, and fifth minutes following induction (p<0.05).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Midazolam · Larinks maskeleri · Propofol

Abstract

Objectives: We evaluated the effects of propofol and midazolam on laryngeal mask (LM) insertion and hemodynamic parameters. Patients and Methods: Two-hundred ASA l-ll patients aged 15 to 65 years were randomly divided into two groups equal in size before surgery of short duration. Induction was performed with midazolam or propofol which were given with fentanyl. Maintenance of anesthe-sia was obtained with 1-3% sevofluorane in both groups. The number of attempts for LM insertion, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and peripheral oxygen saturation were recorded before, during, and after the operation. Results: There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to demographic features and duration of the surgery. Patients' compliance and the success rate in the first attempt were higher in the propofol group (89% versus 86%, p>0.05). Differences in hemodynamic and respiratory changes and in complications were not significant. However, it was found that the mean arterial pressures were significantly decreased in the propofol group in the first, third, and fifth minutes following induction (p<0.05). Conclusion: Our data showed that induction with midazolam is not associated with significant hemodynamic and respiratory events and complications; thus, it may be preferred for LM insertion.

Özet

Amaç: Propofol ve midazolamın larenjeal maske (LM) yerleşilmesine ve hemodinamik parametrelere etkileri değerlendirildi. Hastalar ve Yöntemler: Yaş dağılımı 15-65 olan, ASA l-ll, kısa süreli cerrahi girişim geçirecek 200 olgu rastgele olarak iki gruba ayrıldı. Midazolam ve propo-fol gruplarına indüksiyonda fentanil eklendi. Anestezi idamesi iki grupta da %1 -3 konsantrasyonda sevofluran ile sağlandı. Tüm olgularda, LM takma girişimi sayısı, ortalama arter basıncı, kalp atım hızı, periferik oksijen satürasyonu değerleri ve gelişen komplikasyonlar kaydedildi. Bulgular: İki grupta da olgulara ait demografik özellikler ve ameliyat süresi benzerlik gösteriyordu. Propofol grubunda LM'ye uyum ve birinci yerleştirmedeki başarı oranı (%89) midazolam grubuna (%86) göre yüksek bulundu (p>0.05). Hemodinamik ve solunumla ilgili değişiklikler ve komplikasyonlar iki grup arasında anlamlı farklılık göstermedi, indüksiyondan sonraki 1, 3 ve 5. dakikalardaki ortalama arter basıncı değerlerinin propofol grubunda anlamlı derecede düşük seyrettiği görüldü (p<0.05). Sonuç: Bulgularımız, midazolamın belirgin hemodinamik ve solunumsal yan etkilere yol açmadan, düşük komplikasyon oranıyla LM yerleştirilmesi amacıyla indüksiyonda kullanılabileceğini gösterdi.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERKAL, H., ÖZYURT, Y., ARIKAN, Z., MERCANGÖZ, B. (2003). Comparison of inductions with propofol and midazolam for laryngeal mask insertions. PTT Hastanesi Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 3, 127–130. https://ajindex.com/articles/340392

References (13)

  1. Pennant JH, White PF. The laryngeal mask airway.Its uses in anesthesiology. Anesthesiology 1993;79:144-63
  2. Brain AI. The laryngeal mask-a new concept in airway management. Br J Anaesth 1983;55:801-5
  3. Stott SA. Use of the laryngeal mask in the developing world. Anaesthesia 1993;48:450
  4. Brain AI. The development of the Laryngeal Mask-a brief history of the invention, early clinical studies and experimental work from which the Laryngeal Mask evolved. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1991;Suppl 4:5-17
  5. Brimacombe J. Analysis of 1500 laryngeal mask uses by one anaesthetist in adults undergoing routine anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 1996;51:76-80
  6. Rowbottom SJ, Simpson DL, Grubb D. The laryngeal mask airway in children. A fibreoptic assessment of positioning. Anaesthesia 1991;46:489-91
  7. Özgen S, Dal D. Laringeal maske. Anestezi Dergisi 1996;4:7-13
  8. Joshi GP, Inagaki Y, White PF, Taylor-Kennedy L, Wat LI, Gevirtz C, et al. Use of the laryngeal mask airway as an alternative to the tracheal tube during ambulatory anesthesia. Anesth Analg 1997;85:573-7
  9. Driver IK, Wiltshire S, Mills P, Lillywhite N, Howard-Griffin R. Midazolam co-induction and laryngeal mask insertion. Anaesthesia 1996;51:782-4
  10. Brown GW, Patel N, Ellis FR. Comparison of propofol and thiopentone for laryngeal mask insertion. Anaesthesia 1991;46:771-2
  11. Black TE, Kay B, Healy TE. Reducing the haemody-namic responses to laryngoscopy and intubation. A comparison of alfentanil with fentanyl. Anaesthesia 1984;39:883-7
  12. Gill PS, Shah J, Ogilvy A. Midazolam reduces the dose of propofol required for induction of anaesthesia and laryngeal mask airway insertion. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2001;18:166-70
  13. Boralessa H, Senior DF, Whitwam JG. Cardiovascular response to intubation. A comparative study of thiopentone and midazolam. Anaesthesia 1983;38: 623-7.