Noninvasive evaluation of breathing pattern and thoraco-abdominal motion following the infusion of ketamine or droperidol in humans

36Citations
Citations of this article
34Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The authors compared the respiratory effects of an intravenous infusion of ketamine (1 mg · kg-1) with droperidol (0.1 mg · kg-1), or placebo on three different occasions in a double-blind, randomized fashion in eight healthy volunteers. Breathing pattern, thoraco-abdominal motion, end-expiratory positions of the rib cage and abdomen, arterial hemoglobin oxygen saturation (Sa(O2)), and end-tidal carbon dioxide concentration (FE(CO2)) were continuously measured with noninvasive techniques. During the 1-h monitoring period following drug injection, droperidol produced occasionally significant but clinically unimportant differences in respiratory variables when compared with placebo. In contrast, ketamine induced a significant (P < 0.001) and persistent increase in minute ventilation (+75%) from 5 to 20 min after start of infusion by increasing both the driving (i.e., tidal volume/inspiratory time [V(T)/T(i)]) and the timing (i.e., inspiratory time/total respiratory cycle time [T(i)/T(tot)]) components of ventilation. This was obtained without any significant change in end-expiratory positions or change in relative rib cage contribution to tidal volume. Despite multiple apneic episodes observed with ketamine, the subjects maintained a stable Sa(O2) and FE(CO2), indicating no resting respiratory depression. This study, performed with a noninvasive respiratory monitoring technique, confirms that droperidol infused over 5 min at a clinically used dosage does not cause respiratory depression in healthy subjects, whereas ketamine produces an important ventilatory stimulation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Morel, D. R., Forster, A., & Gemperle, M. (1986). Noninvasive evaluation of breathing pattern and thoraco-abdominal motion following the infusion of ketamine or droperidol in humans. Anesthesiology, 65(4), 392–398. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-198610000-00008

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free