Double-blind comparison of sevofluran vs propofol and succinylcholine for tracheal intubation in children.

We have studied intubating conditions in 64 healthy children, aged 3-10 yr, undergoing adenotonsillectomy, in a double-blind, randomized study. Intubation was performed 150 s after induction using either 8% sevoflurane in nitrous oxide and oxygen or propofol 3-4 mg kg-1 with succinylcholine 2 mg kg-1. An anaesthetist blinded to the technique performed intubation and scored intubating conditions using Krieg and Copenhagen Consensus Conference (CCC) scores. The trachea was intubated successfully at the first attempt in all patients under clinically acceptable conditions, although scores were significantly better with propofol and succinylcholine. The sevoflurane technique cost 3.62 +/- 0.55 Pounds to completion of tracheal intubation, significantly more (P < 0.001) than the cost of propofol-succinylcholine and isoflurane (2.04 +/- 0.54 Pounds) when based on actual amount of drug used. This cost increased to 4.38 +/- 0.05 Pounds when based on whole ampoules, which is significantly more than the cost of sevoflurane (P < 0.001).

Inhalation induction with sevoflurane: a double-blind comparison with propofol.

We conducted a randomized, double-blind comparison of 8% sevoflurane and propofol as induction agents for day-case cystoscopy in 102 patients. All patients received an i.v. cannula and breathed oxygen 5 litre min-1. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol i.v. or inhalation of 8% sevoflurane and 10% Intralipid (as a placebo) i.v., delivered by a blinded observer. Anaesthesia was maintained in all patients with 2% sevoflurane via a face mask. Induction of anaesthesia with sevoflurane was significantly slower compared with propofol (mean 84 (SD 24) s vs 57 (11) s), but was associated with a lower incidence of apnoea (16% vs 65%) and a shorter time to establish spontaneous ventilation (94 (34) s vs 126 (79) s). Induction complications were uncommon in each group but the transition to maintenance was smoother with sevoflurane and was associated with less hypotension compared with propofol. Emergence from anaesthesia induced with sevoflurane occurred significantly earlier compared with propofol (5.2 (2.2) min vs 7.0 (3.2) min) and anaesthetic induction was also significantly cheaper with sevoflurane. According to a postoperative questionnaire, the majority of patients found both anaesthetic techniques acceptable. Nevertheless, significnatly more patients (14%) rated induction with sevoflurane as unpleasant compared with propofol (0) and significantly more patients (24%) would not choose sevoflurane induction compared with propofol (6%). This phenomenon may have been related to the particular patient population studied, however. Inhalation induction with 8% sevoflurane would appear to offer several objective advantages compared with induction with propofol in day-case patients, although a significant minority may dislike this technique.