Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T11:18:55.036Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laryngeal mask airway insertion using propofol without muscle relaxants: a comparative study of pretreatment with midazolam or fentanyl

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2006

K. Nakazawa ,
Y. Hikawa ,
M. Maeda ,
N. Tanaka ,
S. Ishikawa ,
K. Makita  and
K. Amaha
K. Nakazawa
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Tokyo Medical & Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Japan
Y. Hikawa
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesia, Tokyo Metropolitan Hospital of Fuchu, 2-9-2 Musashidai, Fuchu-city, Tokyo, Japan
M. Maeda
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesia, Tokyo Metropolitan Hospital of Fuchu, 2-9-2 Musashidai, Fuchu-city, Tokyo, Japan
N. Tanaka
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Tokyo Medical & Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Japan
S. Ishikawa
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Tokyo Medical & Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Japan
K. Makita
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Tokyo Medical & Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Japan
K. Amaha
Affiliation:
Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Tokyo Medical & Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Japan
Get access

Abstract

We determined the effects of pretreatment with midazolam or fentanyl on the ease of laryngeal mask airway insertion using propofol without a muscle relaxant. One hundred and eighty ASA class I or II patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups, 60 patients per group, to receive either placebo (Group C), midazolam 0.05 mg kg−1 (Group M) or fentanyl 2 μg kg−1 (Group F), respectively. Following intravenous administration of these drugs, Group C received propofol 2.5 (Group C-2.5) or 3.0 mg kg−1 (Group C-3.0). Group M and Group F received propofol 2.0 or 2.5 mg kg−1 (Group M-2.0, M-2.5, F-2.0 and F-2.5, respectively). There was a smaller incidence of severe head and limb movements on LMA insertion in Group M-2.5, Group F-2.0 and Group F-2.5 than in Group C-2.5. Airway obstruction and inadequate jaw relaxation, which were occasionally recognized in Group C and Group F patients, were not observed in Group M-2.5. Overall the ease of LMA insertion was significantly better in Group M-2.0, Group M-2.5 and Group F-2.5 than in Group C 2.5, however, the blood pressure in Group F after LMA insertion was significantly lower than in Group M. We conclude that pretreatment with midazolam 0.05 mg combined with propofol 2.5 mg kg−1 provides safe and satisfactory conditions for LMA insertion.

Keywords

laryngeal mask airwayanaestheticspropofolmidazolamfentanyl
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 16 , Issue 8 , August 1999 , pp. 550 - 555
Copyright
1999 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)