Abstract
Propofol (2,6 diisopropylphenol) 2.5mg · kg-1 IV was compared with thiopentone 5 mg · kg-1 IV as an induction agent in anaesthesia for elective cardioversion. Thirty-five patients (ASA physical status II-III) with atrial fibrillation were included. Thirty patients were randomized to receive propofol or thiopentone. Five patients were treated twice during the study period and anaesthetized with both agents (the first treatment according to the random order and the second with the agent not used on the first occasion). The induction characteristics and the haemodynamic response for propofol and thiopentone were similar. The success rate of cardioversion did not differ between the groups. Recovery times were shorter after propofol than after thiopentone with respect to ocular muscle balance, central integration and subjective sedation of patients. The incidence of side-effects did not differ between the groups. None of the patients reported any awareness during the procedure. All five patients treated twice (with both agents) assessed the anaesthetic procedure with propofol as being more pleasant than that with thiopentone.
Résumé
Le propofol (2,6 diisopropylphenol) 2.5 mg · kg-1 IV a été comparé au thiopentone 5 mg · kg-1 IV comme agent ď induction pour des cardioversions électives. Trente-cinq patients (ASA classe II-III) avec une fibrillation auriculaire ont été inclus, Trente patients ont été randomisés afin de recevoir du propofol ou du thiopentone. Cinq patients ont été traités deux fois durant ľétude et anesthésiês avec les deux agents (la première fois ľagent fut choisi au hasard, la deuxième fois ľautre agent fut utilisé). Les caractéristiques de ľinduction et la réponse hémodynamique étaient similaires avec le propofol et le thiopentone. Le taux de succès de la cardioversion n’était pas différent entre les groupes. Les temps de récupération étaient plus courts après propofol qu’après thiopentone concernant ľéquilibre musculaire oculaire, ľintégration centrale et la sédation subjective des patients. Ľincidence des effets secondaires n’était pas différente entre les groupes. Aucun des patients n’a rapporté avoir eu de rappel lors de la procédure. Tous les patients traités deux fois avec les deux agents ont évalué la procédure anesthésique avec le propofol comme étant plus plaisante qu’avec le thiopentone.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Lown B, Amaringham R, Newman J. New method for terminating cardiac arrythmias. JAMA 1962; 182: 548–52.
Orko R. Anaesthesia for cardioversion. A comparison of diazepam, thiopentone and propanidid. Br J Anaesth 1976; 48: 257–62.
Dundee JW. Intravenous anaesthesia and the need for new agents. Postgrad Med J 1985; 61 (Suppl 3): 23–7.
Adam H, Briggs L, Bahar M, Douglas E, Dundee J. The pharmacokinetic evaluation of ICI 35868 in man. Single induction dose with different rates of infusion. Br J Anaesth 1983; 55: 97–103.
Briggs LP, Clarke RSJ, Watkins J. An adverse reaction to the administration of disopropofol (Diprivan). Anaesthesia 1982; 37: 1099–1101.
Glen JB, Hunter SC. Pharmacology of an emulsion formulation of ICI 35868. Br J Anaesth 1984; 56: 617–25.
Maxwell C. Sensitivity and accuracy of the visual analogue scales: a psycho-physical classroom experiment. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1978; 6: 15–24.
Smith J, Misiak H. Critical flicker frequency (CFF) and psychotropic drugs in normal human subjects — a review. Psychopharmacol 1976; 47: 175–82.
Hannington-Kiff J. Measurement of recovery from outpatient general anaesthesia with simple ocular test. Br Med J 1970; 3: 132–5.
Winer BJ. Statistical principles in experimental design, 2nd ed. New York (Mcgraw Hill), 1971; 523–46.
Coates DP, Prys-Roberts C, Spelino KR, Monk CR, Norley I. Propofol (Diprivan) by intravenous infusion with nitrous oxide: dose requirements and haemodynamic effects. Postgrad Med J 1985; 61 (Suppl 3): 76–9.
Fahy LT, van Mourik GA, Utting JE. A comparison of the induction characteristics of thiopentone and propofol (2,6-di-isopropyl phenol). Anaesthesia 1985; 40: 939–44.
Mackenzie N, Grant IS. Comparison of the new emulsion formulation of propofol with methohexitone and thiopentone for induction of anaesthesia in day cases. Br J Anaesth 1985; 57: 725–31.
McCollum JSC, Dundee JW. Comparison of induction characteristics of four intravenous anaesthetic agents. Anaesthesia 1986; 41: 995–1000.
Patrick MR, Blair IJ, Feneck RO, Sebel PS. A comparison of the haemodynamic effects of propofol (Diprivan) and thiopentone in patients with coronary artery disease. Postgrad Med J 1985; 61 (Suppl 3): 23–7.
Stephan H, Sonntag H, Schenk HD, Kettler D, Khambatta HJ. Effects of propofol on cardiovascular dynamics, myocardial blood flow and myocardial metabolism in patients with coronary artery disease. Br J Anaesth 1986; 58: 969–75.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Valtonen, M., Kanto, J. & Klossner, J. Anaesthesia for cardioversion: A comparison of propofol and thiopentone. Can J Anaesth 35, 479–483 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03026895
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03026895