Abstract
The response to insertion of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) following either propofol 2.5 mg·kg−1 or thiopentone 5 mg ·kg−1 was assessed in two groups of patients. The purpose of the study was to ascertain which of these two induction agents provided the better conditions for insertion of the LMA. Anaesthesia was induced by propofol in 35 patients and by thiopentone in 37. Following induction, ventilation was assisted for two minutes using 50% oxygen and nitrous oxide and 2% isoflurane, before insertion of the LMA. The presence of gagging, coughing, laryngospasm and movement was noted and graded. Thiopentone was associated with an adverse response in 76% of patients, compared with propofol in 26% (P < 0.01). Gagging, laryngospasm and head movement were more common using thiopentone (P < 0.01, P < 0.05 and P < 0.05 respectively) and in 11% (P < 0.05) of the thiopentone group insertion of the LMA was impossible due to inadequate relaxation. We conclude that, using these doses, propofol is superior to thiopentone as an induction agent for insertion of the laryngeal mask airway.
Résumé
On évalue chez deux groupes de patients la réaction à l’insertion du masque laryngé soit après l’administration de propofol 2,5 mg·kg−1 soit de thiopentone 5 mg·kg−1. L’étude vise à déterminer lequel des deux agents procure les meilleures conditions pour l’insertion du masque. L’anesthesie est induite avec du propofol chez 35 patients et du thiopentone chez 37. Après l’induction, la ventilation est assistée avant l’insertion du masque pendant deux minutes avec oxygène 50% dans du protoxyde et isoflurane 2%. La présence de haut-le coeur, toux, laryn-gospasme et mouvements est enregistrée et cotée. Le thiopentone est associé à au moins un incident chez 76% des patients, comparativement au propofol avec 26% (P < 0,01). Le haut-le-cours, laryngospasme et les mouvements de la tête sont plus fréquents avec le thiopentone (P < 0,01, P < 0,05 et P < 0,05 respectivement). Dans 11% des cas où le thiopentone est utilisé, l’insertion du masque laryngé est rendue impossible par manque de relaxation. Nous concluons qu’avec les doses utilisées, le propofol est supérieur au thiopentone comme agent d’induction pour insertion d’un masque laryngé.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Fisher JA, Ananthanarayan C, Edelist G. Role of the la-ryngeal mask in airway management. Can J Anaesthl 1992; 39: 1–3.
Gepts E, Camu F. Pharmacokinetics of intravenous induction agents.In: White PF (Ed.). Bailliere’s Clinical Anaesthesiology, London: Bailliere Tindall, 1991; 5: 513–42.
Stanski DR, Hudson RJ, Homer TD, Saidman LJ, Meathe E. Pharmacodynamic modeling of thiopental anaesthesia. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1984; 12: 223–40.
McKeating K, Bali IM, Dundee J W. The effects of thiopentone and propofol on upper airway integrity. Anaesthesia. 1988; 43: 638–40.
Brown GW, Patel N, Ellis FR. Comparison of propofol and thiopentone for laryngeal mask insertion. Anaesthesia 1991; 46: 771–2.
Taylor MB, Grounds RM, Mulrooney PD, Morgan M. Ventilatory effects of propofol during induction of anaesthesia. Comparison with thiopentone. Anaesthesia 1986; 41: 816–20.
Briggs LP, Dundee JW, Bahar M, Clarke RSJ. Comparison of the effect of diisopropyl phenol (IU 35 868) and thiopentone on response to somatic pain. Br J Anaesth 1982; 54: 307–11.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03010116.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Scanlon, P., Carey, M., Power, M. et al. Patient response to laryngeal mask insertion after induction of anaesthesia with propofol or thiopentone. Can J Anaesth 40, 816–818 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03009250
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03009250