• Eur J Anaesthesiol · Nov 2010

    Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study

    Comparison of sevoflurane volatile induction/maintenance anaesthesia and propofol-remifentanil total intravenous anaesthesia for rigid bronchoscopy under spontaneous breathing for tracheal/bronchial foreign body removal in children.

    • Ren Liao, Jing Y Li, and Guang Y Liu.
    • Department of Anesthesiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. liaoren7733@gmail.com
    • Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010 Nov 1;27(11):930-4.

    Background And ObjectiveForeign body aspiration is a life-threatening condition, with children under 3 years of age most at risk. This study was designed to compare the clinical characteristics of sevoflurane volatile induction/maintenance anaesthesia (VIMA) and propofol-remifentanil total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) for children undergoing rigid bronchoscopy under spontaneous breathing for tracheal/bronchial foreign body removal.MethodsSixty-four children undergoing rigid bronchoscopy were allocated randomly to receive sevoflurane (Group VIMA; n = 32) or propofol-remifentanil (Group TIVA, n = 32) between 2007 and 2009. Respiratory rate, heart rate and mean blood pressure were compared at the time points including baseline level (T 0); laryngoscopy (T lary); insertion of rigid bronchoscope (T bron); 5, 10 and 20 min during procedure (T 5 min, T 10 min, T 20 min); the end of procedure (Tend) and discharge (T dis). Induction time, emergence time, intubating condition scores and the incidence of adverse events were compared.ResultsTime for loss of consciousness (Group VIMA 95.6 ± 15.2 s vs. Group TIVA 146.2 ± 26.9 s, P < 0.05), time of Bispectral Index value decreased to 40 (Group VIMA 115.3 ± 16.5 s vs. Group TIVA 160.4 ± 25.8 s, P < 0.05) and emergence time (Group VIMA 10.5 ± 2.6 min vs. Group TIVA 16.9 ± 3.1 min, P < 0.05) in Group VIMA were significantly shorter than those in Group TIVA. Intubating condition scores between the two groups were comparable (8.1 ± 0.9 in Group VIMA vs. 8.1 ± 1.0 in Group TIVA). The incidence rates of breath holding (Group VIMA 6.25% vs. Group TIVA 31.25%, P < 0.05) and desaturation (Group VIMA 15.63% vs. Group TIVA 37.50%, P < 0.05) in Group VIMA were significantly lower than those in Group TIVA. Heart rate, mean blood pressure and respiratory rate were significantly higher in Group VIMA than in Group TIVA.ConclusionCompared with propofol-remifentanil TIVA, sevoflurane VIMA provides more stable haemodynamics and respiration, faster induction and recovery and higher incidence of excitement in paediatric patients undergoing tracheal/bronchial foreign body removal under spontaneous breathing.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…