JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE AND HEALTHCARE

Table of Contents

2019 Month : October Volume : 6 Issue : 43 Page : 2824-2827

Comparison of haemodynamic and Recovery Profile Using Propofol and Sevoflurane for Otorhinolaryngology Procedures

Siri Kandavar1, Padmanabha Sampathila2

Corresponding Author:
Dr. Siri Kandavar,
Assistant Professor,
Department of Anaesthesiology,
K. S. Hegde Medical Academy,
Deralakatte, Mangalore, Karnataka.
E-mail: sirikandavar16@gmail.com
DOI: 10.18410/jebmh/2019/586

 

ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND
Induction and maintenance of general anaesthesia is done with both intravenous and inhalational agents. This observational study was conducted to compare haemodynamic and recovery profile using propofol and sevoflurane for maintenance of anaesthesia. We wanted to compare haemodynamic parameters like heart rate and mean arterial pressure of sevoflurane and propofol.

METHODS
We included 64 adult patients, belonging to ASA I and II, coming for otorhinolaryngology procedures. They were allocated into 2 groups using closed envelope method. Both groups were induced with propofol 2 mg/Kg, fentanyl 2 mcg/Kg and vecuronium 0.1 mg/Kg and intubated with appropriately sized endotracheal tube. After confirmation of endotracheal tube, oxygen 50% and nitrous oxide 50% and propofol at 100-200 mcg/Kg or sevoflurane at 1.5-2% was started. haemodynamic changes like heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure were recorded from the beginning till the end of the procedure. Haemodynamic profile was noted at the time of extubation and 5 minutes after extubation. Time taken for extubation and spontaneous eye opening were also noted. Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were looked for in immediate postoperative period and after 4 hours.

RESULTS
In the study, propofol group had lower heart rate compared to sevoflurane group which was statistically significant (p= 0.0001). Mean arterial pressure was also lower in the propofol compared to sevoflurane group and was statistically significant (p= 0.0001). Recovery profile was similar in both groups which was not statistically significant. Post-operative nausea and vomiting were seen in both groups in the immediate post-operative period. PONV was noted in 37.5% patients in sevoflurane group and 6.75% in propofol group but it was not seen in propofol group after four hours.

CONCLUSIONS
We found that propofol which was used for maintenance of anaesthesia had better haemodynamic stability compared to sevoflurane; but the time taken for extubation and recovery was similar in both groups. PONV was noted in both the groups but was lesser in propofol group.

KEYWORDS
Inhalational Anaesthesia, Intravenous Anaesthesia, Propofol, Sevoflurane, Post-Operative Nausea and Vomiting