Haemodynamic and catecholamine changes after induction of anaesthesia with either thiopentone or propofol with suxamethonium

31Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Summary: We have compared the haemodynamic and cate-cholamine responses to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation in 43 patients after induction of anaesthesia with either thiopentone 5.1 (SD 0.9) mg kg-1 or propofol 2.2 (0.1) mg kg-1, each with suxamethonium and without opioid pretreatment. Heart rate increased significantly above baseline after induction and intubation in both groups, but there were no differences between groups. Arterial pressure increased significantly at 7 min after intubation in both groups and at 2 min in the thiopentone group only. Plasma concentrations of adrenaline increased significantly compared with concentrations before induction, 1 min after intubation in both groups and at 2 min in the thiopentone group only. Plasma concentrations of adrenaline were significantly greater in the thiopentone group than in the propofol group at both 1 and 2 min after intubation. Plasma concentrations of noradrenaline showed no significant time-based within-group changes, but were significantly greater in the thiopentone group at 1 and 2 min after intubation. We conclude that doses of either thiopentone or propofol sufficient to obtund the eyelash reflex with suxamethonium 1 mg kg-1 alone do not adequately block the catecholamine and hypertensive responses to laryngoscopy and intubation in normal patients and although propofol suppressed increases in catecholamines to a greater extent than thiopentone, there were no clinical advantages. (Br. J. Anaesth. 1994; 72: 596-598) © 1994 British Journal of Anaesthesia.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Brossy, M. J., James, M. F. M., & Janicki, P. K. (1994). Haemodynamic and catecholamine changes after induction of anaesthesia with either thiopentone or propofol with suxamethonium. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 72(5), 596–598. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/72.5.596

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