Comparative hemodynamic depression of sevoflurane versus halothane in infants: An echocardiographic study

149Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: The cardiovascular side effects of volatile anesthetics are one of the chief causes of postoperative complications in children, and infants seem to be at the greatest risk for this. This study compared cardiovascular changes at equipotent concentrations of sevoflurane and halothane in infants. Methods: Thirty infants classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II who required elective surgery were randomized to receive either halothane or sevoflurane for inhalation induction. Cardiovascular and echo-cardiographic data were recorded in both groups at baseline and at end-tidal concentrations of 1 and 1.5 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC). Results: Sevoflurane did not alter heart rate or cardiac index at all concentrations compared with awake values. Sevoflurane significantly decreased blood pressure and systemic vascular resistance compared with awake values at all concentrations. Shortening fraction and rate-corrected velocity of circumferential fiber shortening decreased at 1.5 but not at 1 MAC. Myocardial contractility assessed by stress-velocity index and stress-shortening index decreased significantly at all concentrations, but did not fall into the abnormal range at any concentration. Halothane caused a greater decrease in heart rate, shortening fraction, stress-shortening index, velocity of circumferential fiber shortening, stress-velocity index, and cardiac index at all concentrations than did sevoflurane. Conclusion: Sevoflurane causes a lesser decrease in cardiac output than does halothane in infants.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wodey, E., Pladys, P., Copin, C., Lucas, M. M., Chaumont, A., Carre, P., … Ecoffey, C. (1997). Comparative hemodynamic depression of sevoflurane versus halothane in infants: An echocardiographic study. Anesthesiology, 87(4), 795–800. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199710000-00012

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