Premium
Co‐induction and laryngeal mask insertion# A comparison of thiopentone versus propofol
Author(s) -
Driver I.,
Wilson C.,
Wiltshire S.,
Mills P.,
HowardGriffin R.
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
anaesthesia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.839
H-Index - 117
eISSN - 1365-2044
pISSN - 0003-2409
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1997.az0130b.x
Subject(s) - propofol , alfentanil , medicine , midazolam , anesthesia , mascara , larynx , laryngeal mask airway , airway , surgery , sedation
Conditions for insertion of the laryngeal mask airway were assessed in 70 unpremedicated patients comparing the co‐induction with midazolam‐alfentanil‐thiopentone and midazolam–alfentanil–propofol. Following pre‐induction doses of midazolam 0.04 mg.kg −1 and alfentanil 10 μg.kg −1 , patients received equipotent doses of either thiopentone or propofol. Whilst jaw relaxation and ease of laryngeal mask insertion were similar between the two groups, patients receiving propofol were less likely to have undesired responses requiring additional boluses of induction agent (p < 0.05). We conclude that, using these doses, propofol is superior to thiopentone for laryngeal mask airway insertion when using a co‐induction technique.