Sevofluran ve propofol indüksiyonlarının rokuronyumun nöromuskuler bloğuna etkisi

Bu çalışmada; 0.6 mg.kg-1 rokuronyum uygulanan olgularda sevofluran veya propofol indüksiyonunun entübasyon koşullarına etkisi karşılaştırıldı. Elektif cerrahi yapılacak, ASA I-II grubu 40 olgu rasgele iki gruba ayrıldı. Preoksijenasyondan sonra; anestezi indüksiyonu I. Grupta (n=20) 10 microg.kg-1 alfentanil ve 2.5 mg.kg-1 propofol ile, II.Grupta (n=20) 10 µg.kg-1 alfentanil ve % 7 konsantrasyonda sevofluranın oksijen içinde vital kapasite tekniği uygulanması ile sağlandı. Daha sonra her iki gruba da 0.6 mg.kg-1 rokuronyum verildi ve bunu takip eden 60. saniyede laringoskopiye başlandı. Entübasyon, kullanılan indüksiyon ajanlarını bilmeyen deneyimli bir anestezist tarafından yapıldı. Entübasyon koşulları, laringoskopinin kolaylığı, vokal kordların durumu ve diyaframa yanıtını içeren bir skorlama sistemi kullanılarak mükemmel, iyi, orta veya kötü olarak değerlendirildi. Sevofluran grubunda entübasyon koşulları 13 olguda mükemmel, 7 olguda iyi, propofol grubunda 17 olguda mükemmel, 2 olguda iyi, ve bir olguda orta olarak saptandı. İki grup arasında anlamlı farklılık bulunmadı. Sonuç olarak 0.6 mg.kg-1 rokuronyum ile hızlı indüksiyon sırasında elde edilen entübasyon koşullarının, sevofluran ve propofol indüksiyonunda benzer olduğuna karar verildi.

Effects of inductions with sevoflurane and propofol on the neuromuscular block of rocuronium

In this study, the effects of sevoflurane and propofol on intubating conditions for rapid sequence induction with 0.6 mg.kg<sup>-1</sup> rocuronium, were compared. ASA I-II, 40 patients scheduled for elective surgery were randomly allocated in to two groups. Following preoxygenation, anesthesia was induced by 10 microg.kg<sup>-1</sup> alfentanil and 2.5 mg.kg<sup>-1</sup> propofol in group I (n=20), and in group II (n=20) 10 µg.kg<sup>-1</sup> alfentanil with an inhalational induction with sevoflurane 7 % in oxygen, using vital capacity technique. Rocuronium 0.6 mg.kg-1 was then administered in both groups, followed by laringoscopy 60 s later. Intubating conditions were evaluated by a blinded, experienced anesthetist. Intubating conditions were graded as excellent, good, fair, or poor on the basis of ease of laryngoscopy, condition of the vocal cords and diaphragmatic response. In the sevoflurane group, intubating conditions were scored as excellent in 13 patients, good in 7 patients. In the propofol group, intubating conditions were excellent in 17 patients, good in 2 patients and fair in the remaining patients. The difference between the two groups was not significant. In conclusion, intubating conditions during a rapid sequence induction with 0.6 mg.kg<sup>-1</sup> rocuronium were similar following sevoflurane and propofol inductions.

___

  • 1. Hall JE. Stewart JIM, Harmer M. Single-breath inhalation induction of scvoflurane anaesthesia with and without nitrous oxide: a feasibility study in adults and comparison with an intravenous bolus of propofol. Anaesthesia 1997; 52: 410-15.
  • 2. McCourt KC, Salmela L. Carroll M. Kerr CN. Mirachur RK, Olkkola KT. Comparison of rocuronium and suxamelhonium for use during rapid sequence induction of anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 1997; 79: 134P
  • 3. Cooper R, Mirachur RK. Clarke RSJ. Boules Z. Comparison of intuhaiing conditions after administration of Org 9426 (rocuronium) and suxamethonium. Br J Anaesth 1992:69: 269-73
  • 4. Hans P, Brichant JF. Hubert B, Dewandre PY, Lamy M. Influence of induction of anaesthesia on intubating conditions one minute after rocuronium administration: comparison of ketamine and thiopentone. Anaesthesia 1999; 54: 276-9.
  • 5. Baraka AS. Sayyid SS, Assaf BA.Thiopental-rocuronium versus ketamine-rocuronium for rapid-sequence intubation in parturients undergoing cesarean section. Anesth Analg 1997: 84: 1104-7.
  • 6. Dobson AP. Mc.Cluskey A, Meakin G, Baker RD. Effective time lo satisfactory intubation conditions after administration of rocuronium in adults. Comparison of propofol and thiopentone for rapid sequence induction of anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 1994; 54: 172-6
  • 7. Skinner HJ. Biswas A, Mahajan RP. Evaluation of intubating conditions with rocuronium and either propofol or etomidate for rapid sequence induction. Anaesthesia 1998; 53: 702-6
  • 8. McKeting K, Bali IM, Dundee JW. The effects of thipentone and propofol on upper airway integrity. Anaesthesia 1988; 43: 638-40
  • 9. Sparr HJ, Giesinger S, Ulmer H, Hollenstein-Zacke M, Luger TJ. Influence of induction technique on intubating conditions alter rncuronium in adults: comparison with rapid sequence induciion using thipentone and suxamethonium. Br J Anaesth 1996; 77: 339-42
  • 10.Fuchs-Buder T, Sparr HJ, Ziegcnfup. Thiopental or etomidate for rapid sequence induction with rocuronium. Br J Anaesth 1998;8O: 504-6
  • 11. Chetty MS. Pollard BJ, Wilson A. Healy TEJ. Rocuronium bromide in dental case anaesthesia-a comparison with atracurium and vecuronium. Anaesth Intens Care 1996; 24: 34-41
  • 12. Barclay K, Eggers K, Asai T. Low -dose rocuronium improves conditions for tracheal intubation after induction of anaesthesia with propofol and alfentanil. Br J Anaesth 1997: 78: 92-4
  • 13. Prien T, Zahn P, Menges M, Brussel T. 1 ED90 dose of rocuronium bromide: tracheal intubation conditions and time-course of action. Eur J Anaesth 1995; 11 (Suppl.): 85-90
  • 14. Hall Je, Oldham TA, Stewart JIM, Harmer M. Comparison between halotane and sevoflurane for adult vital capacity induction. Br J Anaesth 1997; 79: 285-8
  • 15. Sloan MH. Conard PF, Karsunsky PK, Gross JB. Sevoflurane versus isoflurane: induction and recovery characteristic with single breath inhaled inductions of anesthesia. Anesth Analg 1996;82:528-32
  • 16. Lowry D, Mirachur RK, Me Carthy GJ, Carroll MT, Me Coun KC. Neuromuscular effects of rocuronium during sevoflurane, isoflurane and intravenous anesthesia. Anesth Analg 1998: 87: 936-40
  • 17. Lowry DW, Carroll MT, Mirachur RK, Hayes A, Hughes D, O'Hare R. Comparison of sevoflurane and propofol with rocuronium for modified rapid-sequence induction of anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 1999; 54: 247-52