Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T11:34:21.747Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pressure support ventilation with the ProSeal® laryngeal mask airway. A comparison of sevoflurane, isoflurane and propofol

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2005

C. Keller ,
J. Brimacombe ,
C. Hoermann ,
A. Loeckinger  and
A. Kleinsasser
C. Keller
Affiliation:
Leopold-Franzens University, Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria
J. Brimacombe
Affiliation:
University of Queensland and James Cook University, Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Cairns Base Hospital, Cairns, Australia
C. Hoermann
Affiliation:
Leopold-Franzens University, Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria
A. Loeckinger
Affiliation:
Leopold-Franzens University, Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria
A. Kleinsasser
Affiliation:
Leopold-Franzens University, Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria
Get access

Extract

Summary

Background and objective: There are no data about the influence of anaesthetics on cardiovascular variables during pressure support ventilation of the lungs through the laryngeal mask airway. We compared propofol, sevoflurane and isoflurane for maintenance of anaesthesia with the ProSeal® laryngeal mask airway during pressure support ventilation. Methods: Sixty healthy adults undergoing peripheral musculo-skeletal surgery were randomized for maintenance with sevoflurane end-tidal 2%, isoflurane end-tidal 1.1% or propofol 6 mg kg−1 h−1 in oxygen 33% and air. Pressure support ventilation comprised positive end-expiratory pressure set at 5 cmH2O, and pressure support set 5 cmH2O above positive end-expiratory pressure. Pressure support was initiated when inspiration produced a 2 cmH2O reduction in airway pressure. A blinded observer recorded cardiorespiratory variables (heart rate, mean blood pressure, oxygen saturation, airway occlusion pressure, respiratory rate, expired tidal volume, expired minute volume and end-tidal CO2), adverse events and emergence times. Results: Respiratory rate and minute volume were 10–21% lower, and end-tidal CO2 6–11% higher with the propofol group compared with the sevoflurane or isoflurane groups, but otherwise cardiorespiratory variables were similar among groups. No adverse events occurred in any group. Emergence times were longer with the propofol group compared with the sevoflurane or isoflurane groups (10 vs. 7 vs. 7 min). Conclusion: Lung ventilation is less effective and emergence times are longer with propofol than sevoflurane or isoflurane for maintenance of anaesthesia during pressure support ventilation with the ProSeal® laryngeal mask airway. However, these differences are small and of doubtful clinical importance.

Keywords

INTUBATION, INTRATRACHEAL, laryngeal masksPULMONARY VENTILATIONRESPIRATION, artificialpressure support ventilationVENTILATORS, mechanical
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 22 , Issue 8 , August 2005 , pp. 630 - 633
Copyright
© 2005 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Lopez-Gil M, Brimacombe J, Cebrian J, Arranz J. Laryngeal mask airway in pediatric practice – a prospective study of skill acquisition by anesthesia residents. Anesthesiology 1996; 84: 807–811.Google Scholar
Keller C, Sparr HJ, Brimacombe J. Positive pressure ventilation in non-paralysed adult patients with the laryngeal mask airway: a comparison of sevoflurane and propofol maintenance techniques. Br J Anaesth 1998; 80: 332–336.Google Scholar
Smith I, Thwaites AJ. Target-controlled propofol vs. sevoflurane: a double-blind, randomized comparison in day-case anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 1999; 54: 745–752.Google Scholar
Raeder J, Gupta A, Pedersen FM. Recovery characteristics of sevoflurane- or propofol-based anaesthesia for day-care surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1997; 41: 988–994.Google Scholar
Cravero JP, Beach M, Dodge CP, Whalen K. Emergence characteristics of sevoflurane compared to halothane in pediatric patients undergoing bilateral pressure equalization tube insertion. J Clin Anesth 2000; 12: 397–401.Google Scholar
Brimacombe J, Keller C, Hörmann C. Pressure support ventilation versus continuous positive airway pressure with the laryngeal mask airway: a randomized crossover study of anesthetized adult patients. Anesthesiology 2000; 92: 1621–1623.Google Scholar
Drage MP, Nunez J, Vaughan RS, Asai T. Jaw thrusting as a clinical test to assess the adequate depth of anaesthesia for insertion of the laryngeal mask. Anaesthesia 1996; 51: 1167–1170.Google Scholar
Keller C, Brimacombe J, Keller K, Morris R. A comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. Br J Anaesth 1999; 82: 286–287.Google Scholar
Brimacombe J, Keller C, Kurian S, Myles J. Reliability of epigastric auscultation to detect gastric insufflation. Br J Anaesth 2002; 88: 127–129.Google Scholar
Keller C, Sparr HJ, Luger TJ, Brimacombe J. Patient outcomes with positive pressure versus spontaneous ventilation in non-paralysed adults with the laryngeal mask. Can J Anaesth 1998; 45: 564–567.Google Scholar
Sachs L. Der Kolmogoroff–Smirnov-Test fuer die Guete der Anpassung. In: Angewandte Statistik. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag, 1992: 426–430.
Goodwin APL, Rowe WL, Ogg TW. Day case laparoscopy – a comparison of two anaesthetic techniques using the laryngeal mask during spontaneous breathing. Anaesthesia 1992; 47: 892–895.Google Scholar
Komatsu H, Chujo K, Morita J et al. Spontaneous breathing with the use of a laryngeal mask airway in children: comparison of sevoflurane and isoflurane. Paed Anaesth 1997; 7: 111–115.Google Scholar
Stix MS, Rodriguez-Sallaberry FE, Cameron EM, Teague PD, O'Connor CJ. Esophageal aspiration of air through the drain tube of the ProSealTM laryngeal mask. Anesth Analg 2001; 93: 1354–1357.Google Scholar