Journals / Haydarpaşa Numune Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Tıp Dergisi / 2002 / Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 2

Comraring the hemodynamic effect of midazolam and propofol in general anesthesia induction

Genel anestezi indüksiyonunda midazolam ile propofolün hemodinamik etkilerinin karşılaştrırılması

Pages
19–22
Publication Date
2022-10-17
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)

On one hand it was seen that hemodynamic stability was not maintained, on the other hand, since the hemodynamic values were affected less and no side effects were seen, it was concluded that in general anesthesia inducation, propofol can be preffered to midazolam.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, we aimed to compare the hemodynamic effects of midazolam and propofol in general anesthesia induction. 30 patients from ASA l-ll risk group, aged between 18 and 65 and 20 of which were women were separated 2 groups at randomly.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Premedication was given by IM 0,5 mg of atropin given 30 minutes before preoperative and 50 mg of meperidin.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:On one hand it was seen that hemodynamic stability was not maintained, on the other hand, since the hemodynamic values were affected less and no side effects were seen, it was concluded that in general anesthesia inducation, propofol can be preffered to midazolam.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study, we aimed to compare the hemodynamic effects of midazolam and propofol in general anesthesia induction. 30 patients from ASA l-ll risk group, aged between 18 and 65 and 20 of which were women were separated 2 groups at randomly. Premedication was given by IM 0,5 mg of atropin given 30 minutes before preoperative and 50 mg of meperidin. To the patients taken to the operation, induction was done by applying 0,25mg/kg of midazolam, 2.5 mg/kg propofol to group II just after applying 1 g/kg fentanyl IV. Intubation was applied by 0,2 mg/kg of cisatrakurium. After applying basal and fentanyl, after the induction, after the intubation at the minutes of 0. ,1., 3., 5. The number of pulsation at a minute, blood pressure and the values of Sp02 were compared. On one hand it was seen that hemodynamic stability was not maintained, on the other hand, since the hemodynamic values were affected less and no side effects were seen, it was concluded that in general anesthesia inducation, propofol can be preffered to midazolam.

Özet

Bu çalışmada genel anestezi indüksiyonunda midazolam ile propofolün hemodinamik etkilerini karşılaştırmayı amaçladık. Elektif cerrahi planlanan, 18-65 yaş arası.ASA l -II risk grubundan, 20'si kadın 30 hasta rastgele iki gruba ayrıldı. Tüm hastalara preoperatif 30 dakika önce İM 0,5 mg. atropin, 50 mg. meperidinle premedikasyon yapıldı. Operasyon masasına alınan hastalara 1 mikrogram/kg fentanil IV uygulamasını takiben Grup l'de 0,25mg/kg midazolam, Grup H'de 2,5 mg/kg propofol ile indüksiyon yapıldı. 0,2 mg/kg cisatrakuryum ile entübasyon sağlandı. Olguların bazal, fentanil sonrası indüksiyon ajanı sonrası, entübasyon sonrası 0. , 1. , 3. / 5. dakikalardaki kalp atım hızı, kan basınçları ve SpO2 değerleri karşılaştırıldı. Her iki grupta da hemodinamik stabilitenin korunamadığı görülmekle beraber, hemodinamik değerlerin daha az etkilenmesi ve yan etki görülmemesi nedeniyle, genel anestezi indüksiyonunda propofolün midazolama tercih edilebileceği sonucuna varıldı.

🔖

Cite This Article

BOSNA, G., AYDIN, N., YALÇINTUNA, I. B. (2022). Comraring the hemodynamic effect of midazolam and propofol in general anesthesia induction. Haydarpaşa Numune Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 2, 19–22. https://ajindex.com/articles/535752

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Kayhan Z. Klinik Anestezi. 2.baskı. İstanbul, Logos Yayıncılık, 1997,58 2. Gelişsen HP, EpemaAH, Hennig RH,etal. Inotropic effects of propofol, thiopental, midazolam, etomidate and ketamine on isolated human atrial muscle. Anesthesiology 1996; 84(2)397-401. 3. Camu F, Kay B. Total Intravenous Anaestheisa.Amsterdam, Elsevier 1991,1. 4. Sun S, Köse Y, Özkoca S ve ark. Propofol ile indüksiyon. Türk Anest Rean Cem Mec 1989;17: 199-202. 5. Marty J, Gaurit R, Lefevri P. Effects of diazepam and midazolam on barroreflex control of heart rate on sympathetic activity in humans. Anesth Analg 1986;65:113-117. 6. Gelman S, Reves JG, Harris D. Circulatory responses to midazolam anesthesia: Emphasis on canine splanchnic circulation. Anesth Analg. 1983; 62:135-139. 7. Sung YF, Weinstern Ms, Biddle MR. Comparison of diprivan and thiopental for intravenous induction of general anaesthesia. Anaesth 1988;65:13-17. 8. Stephan H, Sonntag H, Schenk HD,et al. Effects of propofol on cardiovascular dynamics myocardial blood flow and myocardial metabolism in patient with coro¬nary artery disease. Br J Anaesth 1986;58:696-701. 9. Coates D, Monk C, Prys-Roberts C. Haemodynamic effects of infusions of the emulsion formulation of propofol during nitrousoxide anaesthesia in humans. Anest Analg 1987;66:64-69. 10. Claeys MA, Gepts E, Comu F. Haemodynamic changes during anaesthesia induced and maintained with propofol. BrJAnaest 1988;60:3-7. 11. Collins VJ: Principles of Anesthesiology general and regional anesthesia. 3 Ed., Philadelphia, Lea and Febiger, 1991,387 12. Geller E, Chernibs J, Halpern P, et al. Haemodynamics following reversal of benzodiazepine sedation with Ro 15-1788 in cardiac patients. Anesthesiology 1986; 65:49-54. 13. Short TG, Malign T, Galletly DC. Ventricular arrhytmia precipitated by flumazenil. Br Med J 1988;296:1070-73. 14. Lim AG. Death after flumazenil. Br Med J 1989;299:858-61. 15. Birch BRP. Cardiac arrest associated with flumazenil. BrMedJ 1992;305:180-82.