Cargando…

Comparison of Propofol and Ketamine-Propofol Mixture (Ketofol) on Laryngeal Tube-Suction II Conditions and Hemodynamics: A Randomized, Prospective, Double-Blind Trial()

OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study is to compare the effect of ketamine–propofol mixture (ketofol) and propofol on the laryngeal tube-Suction II (LTS II) insertion conditions and hemodynamics. METHODS: Eighty American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 and 2 patients were divided into 2 random groups...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ozgul, Ulku, Begec, Zekine, Karahan, Kalender, Ali Erdogan, Mehmet, Said Aydogan, Mustafa, Colak, Cemil, Durmus, Mahmut, Ozcan Ersoy, M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3898182/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24465041
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.curtheres.2013.06.003
_version_ 1782300375558127616
author Ozgul, Ulku
Begec, Zekine
Karahan, Kalender
Ali Erdogan, Mehmet
Said Aydogan, Mustafa
Colak, Cemil
Durmus, Mahmut
Ozcan Ersoy, M.
author_facet Ozgul, Ulku
Begec, Zekine
Karahan, Kalender
Ali Erdogan, Mehmet
Said Aydogan, Mustafa
Colak, Cemil
Durmus, Mahmut
Ozcan Ersoy, M.
author_sort Ozgul, Ulku
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study is to compare the effect of ketamine–propofol mixture (ketofol) and propofol on the laryngeal tube-Suction II (LTS II) insertion conditions and hemodynamics. METHODS: Eighty American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 and 2 patients were divided into 2 random groups to receive either 1 µg/kg remifentanil and propofol 2 mg/kg in Group P (n = 40), or 1 µg/kg remifentanil and ketofol (using a 1:1 single syringe mixture of 5 mg/mL ketamine and 5 mg/mL propofol) in Group K (n = 40) before induction of anesthesia. After induction, LTS II was inserted. Heart rate and noninvasive blood pressure were recorded before induction of anesthesia (t(0)); immediately following induction (t(1)); immediately after LTS II insertion (t(2)); and 3 minutes (t(3)), 5 minutes (t(4)), and 10 (t(5)) minutes after LTS II insertion. Conditions of insertion of LTS II were assessed and scored 1 to 3 using 6 variables as follows: mouth opening, swallowing, coughing, head and body movements, laryngospasm, and ease of LTS II insertion by the same experienced anesthesiologist who did not know the agents. LTS II insertion summed score was prepared depending upon these variables. RESULTS: In regard to LTS II insertion summed score, Group K was more favorable than Group P (P < 0.05). Apnea duration was longer in Group P (385.0 seconds [range = 195.0–840.0 seconds]) compared with Group K (325.50 seconds [range = 60.0–840.0 seconds]) but this was not statically significant. The heart rate values were significantly lower at all measurement intervals in both groups compared with the baseline values (P < 0.05). There was no difference in heart rate between Group P and Group K. The mean arterial pressure values were significantly lower at all measurement intervals in Group P compared with baseline values (P < 0.05). In Group K, the mean arterial pressure values were significantly lower at all measurement intervals compared with the baseline values, except t(2) (P < 0.05). There was a significant difference between Group P and Group K in terms of mean arterial pressure at t(3) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found that ketofol provided better insertion summed score for LTS II than propofol, with minimal hemodynamic changes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3898182
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38981822014-01-24 Comparison of Propofol and Ketamine-Propofol Mixture (Ketofol) on Laryngeal Tube-Suction II Conditions and Hemodynamics: A Randomized, Prospective, Double-Blind Trial() Ozgul, Ulku Begec, Zekine Karahan, Kalender Ali Erdogan, Mehmet Said Aydogan, Mustafa Colak, Cemil Durmus, Mahmut Ozcan Ersoy, M. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp Article OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study is to compare the effect of ketamine–propofol mixture (ketofol) and propofol on the laryngeal tube-Suction II (LTS II) insertion conditions and hemodynamics. METHODS: Eighty American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 and 2 patients were divided into 2 random groups to receive either 1 µg/kg remifentanil and propofol 2 mg/kg in Group P (n = 40), or 1 µg/kg remifentanil and ketofol (using a 1:1 single syringe mixture of 5 mg/mL ketamine and 5 mg/mL propofol) in Group K (n = 40) before induction of anesthesia. After induction, LTS II was inserted. Heart rate and noninvasive blood pressure were recorded before induction of anesthesia (t(0)); immediately following induction (t(1)); immediately after LTS II insertion (t(2)); and 3 minutes (t(3)), 5 minutes (t(4)), and 10 (t(5)) minutes after LTS II insertion. Conditions of insertion of LTS II were assessed and scored 1 to 3 using 6 variables as follows: mouth opening, swallowing, coughing, head and body movements, laryngospasm, and ease of LTS II insertion by the same experienced anesthesiologist who did not know the agents. LTS II insertion summed score was prepared depending upon these variables. RESULTS: In regard to LTS II insertion summed score, Group K was more favorable than Group P (P < 0.05). Apnea duration was longer in Group P (385.0 seconds [range = 195.0–840.0 seconds]) compared with Group K (325.50 seconds [range = 60.0–840.0 seconds]) but this was not statically significant. The heart rate values were significantly lower at all measurement intervals in both groups compared with the baseline values (P < 0.05). There was no difference in heart rate between Group P and Group K. The mean arterial pressure values were significantly lower at all measurement intervals in Group P compared with baseline values (P < 0.05). In Group K, the mean arterial pressure values were significantly lower at all measurement intervals compared with the baseline values, except t(2) (P < 0.05). There was a significant difference between Group P and Group K in terms of mean arterial pressure at t(3) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found that ketofol provided better insertion summed score for LTS II than propofol, with minimal hemodynamic changes. Elsevier 2013-12 /pmc/articles/PMC3898182/ /pubmed/24465041 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.curtheres.2013.06.003 Text en © 2013 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License, which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Article
Ozgul, Ulku
Begec, Zekine
Karahan, Kalender
Ali Erdogan, Mehmet
Said Aydogan, Mustafa
Colak, Cemil
Durmus, Mahmut
Ozcan Ersoy, M.
Comparison of Propofol and Ketamine-Propofol Mixture (Ketofol) on Laryngeal Tube-Suction II Conditions and Hemodynamics: A Randomized, Prospective, Double-Blind Trial()
title Comparison of Propofol and Ketamine-Propofol Mixture (Ketofol) on Laryngeal Tube-Suction II Conditions and Hemodynamics: A Randomized, Prospective, Double-Blind Trial()
title_full Comparison of Propofol and Ketamine-Propofol Mixture (Ketofol) on Laryngeal Tube-Suction II Conditions and Hemodynamics: A Randomized, Prospective, Double-Blind Trial()
title_fullStr Comparison of Propofol and Ketamine-Propofol Mixture (Ketofol) on Laryngeal Tube-Suction II Conditions and Hemodynamics: A Randomized, Prospective, Double-Blind Trial()
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Propofol and Ketamine-Propofol Mixture (Ketofol) on Laryngeal Tube-Suction II Conditions and Hemodynamics: A Randomized, Prospective, Double-Blind Trial()
title_short Comparison of Propofol and Ketamine-Propofol Mixture (Ketofol) on Laryngeal Tube-Suction II Conditions and Hemodynamics: A Randomized, Prospective, Double-Blind Trial()
title_sort comparison of propofol and ketamine-propofol mixture (ketofol) on laryngeal tube-suction ii conditions and hemodynamics: a randomized, prospective, double-blind trial()
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3898182/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24465041
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.curtheres.2013.06.003
work_keys_str_mv AT ozgululku comparisonofpropofolandketaminepropofolmixtureketofolonlaryngealtubesuctioniiconditionsandhemodynamicsarandomizedprospectivedoubleblindtrial
AT begeczekine comparisonofpropofolandketaminepropofolmixtureketofolonlaryngealtubesuctioniiconditionsandhemodynamicsarandomizedprospectivedoubleblindtrial
AT karahankalender comparisonofpropofolandketaminepropofolmixtureketofolonlaryngealtubesuctioniiconditionsandhemodynamicsarandomizedprospectivedoubleblindtrial
AT alierdoganmehmet comparisonofpropofolandketaminepropofolmixtureketofolonlaryngealtubesuctioniiconditionsandhemodynamicsarandomizedprospectivedoubleblindtrial
AT saidaydoganmustafa comparisonofpropofolandketaminepropofolmixtureketofolonlaryngealtubesuctioniiconditionsandhemodynamicsarandomizedprospectivedoubleblindtrial
AT colakcemil comparisonofpropofolandketaminepropofolmixtureketofolonlaryngealtubesuctioniiconditionsandhemodynamicsarandomizedprospectivedoubleblindtrial
AT durmusmahmut comparisonofpropofolandketaminepropofolmixtureketofolonlaryngealtubesuctioniiconditionsandhemodynamicsarandomizedprospectivedoubleblindtrial
AT ozcanersoym comparisonofpropofolandketaminepropofolmixtureketofolonlaryngealtubesuctioniiconditionsandhemodynamicsarandomizedprospectivedoubleblindtrial