PubMed · 5405892
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R Münchow, E Friis, M Schädlich. 1969-12-04. [Catecholamine effect under halothane narcosis].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5405892/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
A double-blind and randomized study design was used to investigate 100 healthy children, aged 1-5 years. Intubating conditions and cardiovascular changes during deep halothane anaesthesia, defined as an end-tidal concentration of 2%, were compared with those changes during 1% halothane and suxamethonium relaxation. Intubating conditions were graded according to the ease of laryngoscopy, vocal cord position, coughing and jaw relaxation. In each group 96% of the children demonstrated acceptable intubating conditions. Jaw relaxation was worse in the 1% halothane/-suxamethonium group (P < 0.01). When anaesthesia with 2% or 1% halothane was compared there was a more pronounced decrease in systolic blood pressure (18 vs. 8%, P < 0.001). Junctional rhythm occurred more frequently during deep halothane anaesthesia (46 vs. 18%, P < 0.01). Intravenously (i.v.) administered atropine attenuated blood pressure depression significantly and reinstituted sinus rhythm in most cases.
Sevoflurane has a lower blood-gas solubility and a less pungent odour than halothane; this may allow more rapid induction of anaesthesia. In a randomized, blinded study, we compared the induction characteristics of maximum initial inspired concentration of 8% sevoflurane and 5% halothane using conventional vaporizers in children aged 3 months to 3 years. There was no statistically significant difference in induction times between the two groups: mean times to loss of consciousness were 1 min 12 s (SD 18 s, range 40 s-1 min 44 s) for sevoflurane and 1 min 16 s (SD 17 s, range 50 s-1 min 52 s) for halothane, although these times were shorter than in previous studies using a gradual increase in vapour concentration. A small number of complications were noted in both groups, although none interfered with induction of anaesthesia. Struggling scores were lower in the sevoflurane group than in the halothane group (chi-square for trends = 6.34, P < 0.02). A significant number (11 of 15) of parents of children in the sevoflurane group who had previous experience of halothane induction preferred sevoflurane (chi-square for trends = 4.03, P < 0.05). We conclude that with this technique, induction was rapid with both sevoflurane and halothane. Our assessment of patient struggling and parents' perceptions suggests that induction with sevoflurane was more pleasant than with halothane.