𝔖 Bobbio Scriptorium
✦   LIBER   ✦

A comparison between midazolam co-induction and propofol predosing for the induction of anaesthesia in the elderly

✍ Scribed by N. A. Jones; S. Elliott; J. Knight

Publisher
John Wiley and Sons
Year
2002
Tongue
English
Weight
77 KB
Volume
57
Category
Article
ISSN
0003-2409

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

✦ Synopsis

Summary In a prospective, double‐blind, randomised, placebo‐controlled trial, we have compared the effects of midazolam co‐induction with propofol predosing on the induction dose requirements of propofol in elderly patients. We enrolled 60 patients aged > 70 years, attending for urological surgery. The patients were allocated randomly to one of three groups, to receive either midazolam 0.02 mg.kg^−1^, propofol 0.25 mg.kg^−1^, or normal saline 2 ml (placebo) 2 min prior to induction of anaesthesia using propofol 1% infusion at 300 ml.h^−1^. The propofol dose requirements for induction were recorded for two end‐points (loss of verbal contact and insertion of an oropharyngeal airway). Cardiovascular parameters were recorded at 1‐min intervals for each patient until induction was complete. The midazolam group showed a significant reduction in propofol dose requirements for induction (p = 0.05) compared to the placebo group. The propofol group did not show a significant dose reduction compared to placebo. There were no demonstrable differences in terms of improved cardiovascular stability between groups. We conclude that propofol predosing does not significantly reduce the induction dose of propofol required in the elderly, and there were no cardiovascular benefits to either midazolam co‐induction or propofol predosing in the elderly.

📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES

Sevoflurane: a comparison between vital
Sevoflurane: a comparison between vital capacity and tidal breathing techniques for the induction of anaesthesia and laryngeal mask airway placement
✍ Baker; Smith 📂 Article 📅 1999 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 72 KB

Sixty unpremedicated adult day‐case patients were randomly assigned to either vital capacity or tidal breathing inhalational induction techniques. End points assessed included loss of eyelash reflex, time to drop a weighted syringe, time to jaw relaxation and time to the end of laryngeal mask airway

A comparison of bispectral index and ARX
A comparison of bispectral index and ARX-derived auditory evoked potential index in measuring the clinical interaction between ketamine and propofol anaesthesia
✍ H. E. M. Vereecke; M. M. R. F. Struys; E. P. Mortier 📂 Article 📅 2003 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 219 KB

## Summary We evaluated the effects of a bolus (0.4 mg.kg^−1^) and continuous infusion (1 mg.kg^−1^.h^−1^) of ketamine on Bispectral Index (BIS) and A‐Line® ARX Index (AAI) during propofol anaesthesia. We included 15 ASA I patients scheduled for general anaesthesia. Induction was performed by infus

The use of anaesthetic rooms for inducti
The use of anaesthetic rooms for induction of anaesthesia: a postal survey of current practice and attitudes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland
✍ H. J. Bromhead; N. A. Jones 📂 Article 📅 2002 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 77 KB

**Summary** A postal survey was sent to all anaesthetic departments in the UK to identify current practice and gain insight into anaesthetists' attitudes regarding the use of anaesthetic rooms for induction of general anaesthesia. Replies were received from 247 (88%) departments. Of these, 10 (4%) d

Direct comparison of two different mesal
Direct comparison of two different mesalamine formulations for the induction of remission in patients with ulcerative colitis: A double-blind, randomized study
✍ Hiroaki Ito; Mitsuo Iida; Takayuki Matsumoto; Yasuo Suzuki; Hidetaka Sasaki; Toy 📂 Article 📅 2010 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 131 KB 👁 2 views

Background: Mesalamine is the first-line drug for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). We directly compared the efficacy and safety of two mesalamine formulations for the induction of remission in patients with UC. ## Methods: In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized study, 229 patients wit