Revista brasileira de anestesiologia · 2011
Comparison of enflurane and propofol in electroconvulsive therapy, a randomized crossover open preliminary study on seizure duration and anaesthetic recovery.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Dogan Zafer, Senoglu Nimet, Yildiz Huseyin, Coskuner Ismail, Ugur Nadiye, Biter Elif, Oksuz Hafize
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is commonly used for treatment of depression, mania and affective disorders. Anaesthetics for general anaesthesia during ECT should have rapid onset, rapid emerge, not interfere with seizure activity and not shorten seizure duration. The aim of this study is to compare effects of enflurane, a pro-convulsive anaesthetic agent, and propofol on seizure durations, postictal suppression index and recovery times during electroconvulsive therapy.
METHODS: Unpremedicated subjects were divided into two groups according to induction of anaesthesia. Patients were induced for ECT with 5% enflurane in group E and 1.2mg.kg(-1) propofol in group P until loss of consciousness. The durations of electroencephalogram (EEG) and motor seizures, postictal suppression index, time to spontaneous breathing, duration of eye opening, and obeying commands were recorded.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding motor and EEG seizure times and postictal suppression index on the EEG records. Recovery times (times of starting spontaneous breathing, eye opening, and obeying command) were significantly shorter in group E compared to group P. No nausea or vomiting were observed and no ECG abnormality was noted except transient sinus bradycardia and sinus tachycardia.
CONCLUSIONS: Although sufficient seizure for the treatment was provided during enflurane anaesthesia, any additional benefit was not revealed regarding seizure times or postictal suppression index when compared to propofol anaesthesia. On the other hand, recovery times after enflurane anaesthesia were shorter than propofol anaesthesia. However, there is still a need for further study in different ETCO(2) levels.
METHODS: Unpremedicated subjects were divided into two groups according to induction of anaesthesia. Patients were induced for ECT with 5% enflurane in group E and 1.2mg.kg(-1) propofol in group P until loss of consciousness. The durations of electroencephalogram (EEG) and motor seizures, postictal suppression index, time to spontaneous breathing, duration of eye opening, and obeying commands were recorded.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding motor and EEG seizure times and postictal suppression index on the EEG records. Recovery times (times of starting spontaneous breathing, eye opening, and obeying command) were significantly shorter in group E compared to group P. No nausea or vomiting were observed and no ECG abnormality was noted except transient sinus bradycardia and sinus tachycardia.
CONCLUSIONS: Although sufficient seizure for the treatment was provided during enflurane anaesthesia, any additional benefit was not revealed regarding seizure times or postictal suppression index when compared to propofol anaesthesia. On the other hand, recovery times after enflurane anaesthesia were shorter than propofol anaesthesia. However, there is still a need for further study in different ETCO(2) levels.