Exploration of xenon as a potential cardiostable sedative: a comparison with propofol after cardiac surgery

Xenon anaesthesia is thought to have minimal haemodynamic side‐effects. It is, however, expensive and requires special delivery systems for economic use. In this randomised cross‐over study, we: (i) investigated the haemodynamic profile and recovery characteristics of xenon compared with propofol se...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Anaesthesia 2001-09, Vol.56 (9), p.829-835
Main Authors: Dingley, J., King, R., Hughes, L., Terblanche, C., Mahon, S., Hepp, M., Youhana, A., Watkins, A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aged
Anaesthetic techniques: low flow
closed‐system
Anaesthetics: inert gases
Anesthesia, Closed-Circuit - methods
Anesthetics, Inhalation - pharmacology
Anesthetics, Intravenous - pharmacology
Biological and medical sciences
Conscious Sedation - methods
Coronary Artery Bypass
Cross-Over Studies
Hemodynamics - drug effects
Humans
Hypnotics. Sedatives
Male
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Neuropharmacology
Pharmacology. Drug treatments
Postoperative Care - methods
Propofol - pharmacology
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychopharmacology
Xenon - pharmacology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Xenon anaesthesia is thought to have minimal haemodynamic side‐effects. It is, however, expensive and requires special delivery systems for economic use. In this randomised cross‐over study, we: (i) investigated the haemodynamic profile and recovery characteristics of xenon compared with propofol sedation in postoperative cardiac surgery patients, and (ii) evaluated a fully closed breathing system to minimise xenon consumption. We demonstrated a significantly faster recovery from xenon (3 min 11 s) than propofol sedation (25 min 23 s). Relative to propofol, xenon sedation produced no change in heart rate or mean arterial pressure and there were significantly higher mean values for central venous pressure (10.6 vs. 8.9 mmHg), pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (11.2 vs. 9.5 mmHg), mean pulmonary artery pressure (20.1 vs. 18.3 mmHg) and systemic vascular resistance index (2170 vs. 1896 dyn.s.cm−5.m−2). The haemodynamic profile seen with propofol reflected its known vasodilator effects. This was supported by the almost identical left ventricular stroke work indexes seen with both methods of sedation.
ISSN:0003-2409
1365-2044
DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2044.2001.02139.x