Chang Gung medical journal · 2000
Effects of induction anesthetic agents on outcome of assisted reproductive technology: a comparison of propofol and thiopental sodium.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Huang H W, Huang F J, Kung F T, Tsai M Y, Lin H, Chang S Y, Hsu Y H, Chang H W
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The use of propofol, as compared to barbiturates (e.g. thiopental), for short surgical procedures has been associated with more rapid recovery from the procedure. Propofol, an intravenous anesthetic drug, is frequently used as an adjunct to transvaginal oocyte retrieval but little is known about its effects upon fertilization, embryo development, and pregnancy rate when used drug the for induction of general anesthesia. This study was conducted to compare the outcome of assisted reproductive technology (ART) with the use of propofol versus thiopental sodium for the induction of general anesthesia during oocyte retrieval.
METHODS: In this retrospective study, 92 cases of infertile patients who underwent oocyte retrieval under the induction of general anesthesia with, respectively, either propofol (Group I, 72 cases) or thiopental sodium (Group II, 20 cases) were compared for fertilization rate, cleavage rate, and pregnancy rate.
RESULTS: The fertilization rate was 68.9% for Group I and 66.7% for group II (p = 0.614). The cleavage rate was 96.5% for Group I and 94.8% for Group II (p = 0.294). The rate of good embryo grading and poor embryo grading was, respectively, 85.1% and 14.9% for Group I, versus 85.7% and 14.3% for Group II (p = 0.887). The pregnancy rate was 30.5% for Group I and 20.0% for Group II (p = 0.354). The implantation rate and abortion rate was, respectively, 9.1% and 18.2% for Group I versus 7.2% and 25.0% for Group II (implantation rate, p = 0.590; abortion rate, p = 0.600).
CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences between these two groups for fertilization rate, cleavage rate, pregnancy rate, implantation rate and abortion rate. We suggest cautious use of propofol for the procedure of oocyte retrieval despite its associated more rapid post-operative recovery including less nausea/vomiting.
METHODS: In this retrospective study, 92 cases of infertile patients who underwent oocyte retrieval under the induction of general anesthesia with, respectively, either propofol (Group I, 72 cases) or thiopental sodium (Group II, 20 cases) were compared for fertilization rate, cleavage rate, and pregnancy rate.
RESULTS: The fertilization rate was 68.9% for Group I and 66.7% for group II (p = 0.614). The cleavage rate was 96.5% for Group I and 94.8% for Group II (p = 0.294). The rate of good embryo grading and poor embryo grading was, respectively, 85.1% and 14.9% for Group I, versus 85.7% and 14.3% for Group II (p = 0.887). The pregnancy rate was 30.5% for Group I and 20.0% for Group II (p = 0.354). The implantation rate and abortion rate was, respectively, 9.1% and 18.2% for Group I versus 7.2% and 25.0% for Group II (implantation rate, p = 0.590; abortion rate, p = 0.600).
CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences between these two groups for fertilization rate, cleavage rate, pregnancy rate, implantation rate and abortion rate. We suggest cautious use of propofol for the procedure of oocyte retrieval despite its associated more rapid post-operative recovery including less nausea/vomiting.