PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

C S Stuart

Publications and source records attributed to C S Stuart.

3 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1989

Comparison of methohexital and propofol for electroconvulsive therapy: effects on hemodynamic responses and seizure duration.

Electroconvulsive therapy can produce severe disturbances in the cardiovascular system, most commonly a transient period of hypertension. This study was designed to determine whether propofol, in comparison with methohexital, would attenuate this hypertensive response. Fifteen patients were studied during courses of six ECT administrations, each patient receiving propofol or methohexital on different occasions. Arterial pressure, heart rate, and cardiac rhythm were recorded. The induction doses were 1.08 +/- 0.03 mg.kg-1 of methohexital, and 1.60 +/- 0.04 mg.kg-1 of propofol. Systolic pressure, diastolic pressure, and heart rate were consistently lower following propofol than methohexital (P less than 0.005). The mean maximum increase over baseline systolic pressure was 2.1 +/- 2.9 mmHg with propofol, and 26.7 +/- 4.5 mmHg with methohexital (P less than 0.001). Cardiac rhythm abnormalities were infrequent, and their incidence did not differ significantly between the two induction agents (P greater than 0.3). The duration of seizures, as measured clinically, was reduced with propofol (17.9 +/- 2.5 s) in comparison with methohexital (30.9 +/- 2.8 s) (P less than 0.001). Recovery times were similar for the two agents. Since the role of seizure duration in the therapeutic efficacy of ECT remains controversial, propofol may be a useful induction agent for this procedure.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed1989

Neostigmine after spontaneous recovery from neuromuscular blockade. Effect on depth of blockade monitored with train-of-four and tetanic stimuli.

The effect of neostigmine on neuromuscular function was examined after spontaneous recovery from an atracurium-induced neuromuscular blockade, which reached a train-of-four ratio of either 0.5 or 0.9. Two doses of neostigmine 2.5 mg were given 5 minutes apart. Neuromuscular recovery was assessed with train-of-four and tetanic stimuli. The first dose of neostigmine antagonised the neuromuscular blockade. The second dose diminished tetanic height and increased tetanic fade. The train-of-four measured mechanically was adversely affected to a small degree, but when measured with the electromyograph no significant change occurred. Neostigmine may adversely affect neuromuscular function after spontaneous recovery from a non-depolarising block. This is unlikely with a single modest dose and any effects are probably short-lived.

Adolescent↗