Loading…
Nitrous oxide does not improve sevoflurane induction of anesthesia in adults
Study Objective: To compare the characteristics of sevoflurane induction with and without the addition of nitrous oxide (N 2 O) using tidal breathing inhalation induction without priming of the breathing circuit. Design: Randomized, double-blind study. Setting: Operating rooms of an ambulatory surge...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Journal of clinical anesthesia 2002-05, Vol.14 (3), p.218-222 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| 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!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-70a09f3df7bf358065abe553f777d4cebaf0bb067eb58bd9983bdc8c365d4a283 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-70a09f3df7bf358065abe553f777d4cebaf0bb067eb58bd9983bdc8c365d4a283 |
| container_end_page | 222 |
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 218 |
| container_title | Journal of clinical anesthesia |
| container_volume | 14 |
| creator | Siau, C. Liu, E.H.C. |
| description | Study Objective:
To compare the characteristics of sevoflurane induction with and without the addition of nitrous oxide (N
2
O) using tidal breathing inhalation induction without priming of the breathing circuit.
Design:
Randomized, double-blind study.
Setting:
Operating rooms of an ambulatory surgery suite at a university hospital.
Patients:
60 ASA physical status I and II adult patients undergoing elective surgery.
Interventions:
Patients were randomized into two groups. During induction, Group 1 received 8% sevoflurane in N
2
O 4L/min and oxygen (O
2
) 2L/min; Group 2 received 8% sevoflurane in O
2
6L/min. The time to cessation of finger tapping was used as the main index for induction time. Any adverse effects such as coughing, apnea, excessive oral secretions, laryngospasm, excitatory movements, and hemodynamic changes were also noted.
Measurements and Main Results:
There were no significant differences in the induction times (Group 1: 62.0 vs.
Group 2: 60.0 sec), number of breaths taken to this time (15.0 vs
. 14.0), expired sevoflurane concentration at this time (3.4 vs
. 3.2%), and time to Laryngeal Mask Airway™
insertion (160.0 vs
. 195.0 sec). The frequencies of induction-related adverse events were similar in both study groups.
Conclusion:
The addition of N
2
O does not confer any clinically significant advantage in this method of sevoflurane induction in adults. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S0952-8180(02)00349-5 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71737531</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0952818002003495</els_id><sourcerecordid>71737531</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-70a09f3df7bf358065abe553f777d4cebaf0bb067eb58bd9983bdc8c365d4a283</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1P3DAQhq0KVBban9DKFyo4hI7jdeycUIX4klbl0PZs-WOsGmVjaicr-u8x7AqOnEaaeWb8-iHkC4MzBqz7_gt60TaKKTiB9hSAL_tGfCALpiRvlqLt98jiFTkgh6XcA0AdsI_kgLXAmRRyQVY_45TTXGh6jB6pT1jomCYa1w85bZAW3KQwzNmMSOPoZzfFNNIUaG2U6S-WaGqfGj8PU_lE9oMZCn7e1SPy5-ry98VNs7q7vr34sWoc79nUSDDQB-6DtIELBZ0wFoXgQUrplw6tCWAtdBKtUNb3veLWO-V4J_zStIofkW_buzXjv7nm0OtYHA5DDVX_oiWTXArOKii2oMuplIxBP-S4Nvm_ZqCfNeoXjfrZkYZWv2jUou593T0w2zX6t62dtwoc7wBTnBlC9eNieeN4V88qXrnzLYdVxyZi1sVFHB36mNFN2qf4TpQnTZyP-Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>71737531</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Nitrous oxide does not improve sevoflurane induction of anesthesia in adults</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Siau, C. ; Liu, E.H.C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Siau, C. ; Liu, E.H.C.</creatorcontrib><description>Study Objective:
To compare the characteristics of sevoflurane induction with and without the addition of nitrous oxide (N
2
O) using tidal breathing inhalation induction without priming of the breathing circuit.
Design:
Randomized, double-blind study.
Setting:
Operating rooms of an ambulatory surgery suite at a university hospital.
Patients:
60 ASA physical status I and II adult patients undergoing elective surgery.
Interventions:
Patients were randomized into two groups. During induction, Group 1 received 8% sevoflurane in N
2
O 4L/min and oxygen (O
2
) 2L/min; Group 2 received 8% sevoflurane in O
2
6L/min. The time to cessation of finger tapping was used as the main index for induction time. Any adverse effects such as coughing, apnea, excessive oral secretions, laryngospasm, excitatory movements, and hemodynamic changes were also noted.
Measurements and Main Results:
There were no significant differences in the induction times (Group 1: 62.0 vs.
Group 2: 60.0 sec), number of breaths taken to this time (15.0 vs
. 14.0), expired sevoflurane concentration at this time (3.4 vs
. 3.2%), and time to Laryngeal Mask Airway™
insertion (160.0 vs
. 195.0 sec). The frequencies of induction-related adverse events were similar in both study groups.
Conclusion:
The addition of N
2
O does not confer any clinically significant advantage in this method of sevoflurane induction in adults.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0952-8180</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-4529</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0952-8180(02)00349-5</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12031757</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Anesthetics, Inhalation - administration & dosage ; Anesthetics. Neuromuscular blocking agents ; Biological and medical sciences ; Double-Blind Method ; Female ; Humans ; Inhalation induction ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Methyl Ethers - administration & dosage ; Neuropharmacology ; nitrous oxide ; Nitrous Oxide - administration & dosage ; Pharmacology. Drug treatments ; sevoflurane ; tidal breathing ; Time Factors</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical anesthesia, 2002-05, Vol.14 (3), p.218-222</ispartof><rights>2002 Elsevier Science Inc.</rights><rights>2002 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-70a09f3df7bf358065abe553f777d4cebaf0bb067eb58bd9983bdc8c365d4a283</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-70a09f3df7bf358065abe553f777d4cebaf0bb067eb58bd9983bdc8c365d4a283</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=13695283$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12031757$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Siau, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, E.H.C.</creatorcontrib><title>Nitrous oxide does not improve sevoflurane induction of anesthesia in adults</title><title>Journal of clinical anesthesia</title><addtitle>J Clin Anesth</addtitle><description>Study Objective:
To compare the characteristics of sevoflurane induction with and without the addition of nitrous oxide (N
2
O) using tidal breathing inhalation induction without priming of the breathing circuit.
Design:
Randomized, double-blind study.
Setting:
Operating rooms of an ambulatory surgery suite at a university hospital.
Patients:
60 ASA physical status I and II adult patients undergoing elective surgery.
Interventions:
Patients were randomized into two groups. During induction, Group 1 received 8% sevoflurane in N
2
O 4L/min and oxygen (O
2
) 2L/min; Group 2 received 8% sevoflurane in O
2
6L/min. The time to cessation of finger tapping was used as the main index for induction time. Any adverse effects such as coughing, apnea, excessive oral secretions, laryngospasm, excitatory movements, and hemodynamic changes were also noted.
Measurements and Main Results:
There were no significant differences in the induction times (Group 1: 62.0 vs.
Group 2: 60.0 sec), number of breaths taken to this time (15.0 vs
. 14.0), expired sevoflurane concentration at this time (3.4 vs
. 3.2%), and time to Laryngeal Mask Airway™
insertion (160.0 vs
. 195.0 sec). The frequencies of induction-related adverse events were similar in both study groups.
Conclusion:
The addition of N
2
O does not confer any clinically significant advantage in this method of sevoflurane induction in adults.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Anesthetics, Inhalation - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Anesthetics. Neuromuscular blocking agents</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Double-Blind Method</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inhalation induction</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Methyl Ethers - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Neuropharmacology</subject><subject>nitrous oxide</subject><subject>Nitrous Oxide - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</subject><subject>sevoflurane</subject><subject>tidal breathing</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><issn>0952-8180</issn><issn>1873-4529</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkE1P3DAQhq0KVBban9DKFyo4hI7jdeycUIX4klbl0PZs-WOsGmVjaicr-u8x7AqOnEaaeWb8-iHkC4MzBqz7_gt60TaKKTiB9hSAL_tGfCALpiRvlqLt98jiFTkgh6XcA0AdsI_kgLXAmRRyQVY_45TTXGh6jB6pT1jomCYa1w85bZAW3KQwzNmMSOPoZzfFNNIUaG2U6S-WaGqfGj8PU_lE9oMZCn7e1SPy5-ry98VNs7q7vr34sWoc79nUSDDQB-6DtIELBZ0wFoXgQUrplw6tCWAtdBKtUNb3veLWO-V4J_zStIofkW_buzXjv7nm0OtYHA5DDVX_oiWTXArOKii2oMuplIxBP-S4Nvm_ZqCfNeoXjfrZkYZWv2jUou593T0w2zX6t62dtwoc7wBTnBlC9eNieeN4V88qXrnzLYdVxyZi1sVFHB36mNFN2qf4TpQnTZyP-Q</recordid><startdate>20020501</startdate><enddate>20020501</enddate><creator>Siau, C.</creator><creator>Liu, E.H.C.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Science</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20020501</creationdate><title>Nitrous oxide does not improve sevoflurane induction of anesthesia in adults</title><author>Siau, C. ; Liu, E.H.C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-70a09f3df7bf358065abe553f777d4cebaf0bb067eb58bd9983bdc8c365d4a283</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Anesthetics, Inhalation - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Anesthetics. Neuromuscular blocking agents</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Double-Blind Method</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inhalation induction</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Methyl Ethers - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Neuropharmacology</topic><topic>nitrous oxide</topic><topic>Nitrous Oxide - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</topic><topic>sevoflurane</topic><topic>tidal breathing</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Siau, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, E.H.C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical anesthesia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Siau, C.</au><au>Liu, E.H.C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Nitrous oxide does not improve sevoflurane induction of anesthesia in adults</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical anesthesia</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Anesth</addtitle><date>2002-05-01</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>218</spage><epage>222</epage><pages>218-222</pages><issn>0952-8180</issn><eissn>1873-4529</eissn><abstract>Study Objective:
To compare the characteristics of sevoflurane induction with and without the addition of nitrous oxide (N
2
O) using tidal breathing inhalation induction without priming of the breathing circuit.
Design:
Randomized, double-blind study.
Setting:
Operating rooms of an ambulatory surgery suite at a university hospital.
Patients:
60 ASA physical status I and II adult patients undergoing elective surgery.
Interventions:
Patients were randomized into two groups. During induction, Group 1 received 8% sevoflurane in N
2
O 4L/min and oxygen (O
2
) 2L/min; Group 2 received 8% sevoflurane in O
2
6L/min. The time to cessation of finger tapping was used as the main index for induction time. Any adverse effects such as coughing, apnea, excessive oral secretions, laryngospasm, excitatory movements, and hemodynamic changes were also noted.
Measurements and Main Results:
There were no significant differences in the induction times (Group 1: 62.0 vs.
Group 2: 60.0 sec), number of breaths taken to this time (15.0 vs
. 14.0), expired sevoflurane concentration at this time (3.4 vs
. 3.2%), and time to Laryngeal Mask Airway™
insertion (160.0 vs
. 195.0 sec). The frequencies of induction-related adverse events were similar in both study groups.
Conclusion:
The addition of N
2
O does not confer any clinically significant advantage in this method of sevoflurane induction in adults.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>12031757</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0952-8180(02)00349-5</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0952-8180 |
| ispartof | Journal of clinical anesthesia, 2002-05, Vol.14 (3), p.218-222 |
| issn | 0952-8180 1873-4529 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71737531 |
| source | ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Adult Anesthetics, Inhalation - administration & dosage Anesthetics. Neuromuscular blocking agents Biological and medical sciences Double-Blind Method Female Humans Inhalation induction Male Medical sciences Methyl Ethers - administration & dosage Neuropharmacology nitrous oxide Nitrous Oxide - administration & dosage Pharmacology. Drug treatments sevoflurane tidal breathing Time Factors |
| title | Nitrous oxide does not improve sevoflurane induction of anesthesia in adults |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T19%3A23%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Nitrous%20oxide%20does%20not%20improve%20sevoflurane%20induction%20of%20anesthesia%20in%20adults&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20anesthesia&rft.au=Siau,%20C.&rft.date=2002-05-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=218&rft.epage=222&rft.pages=218-222&rft.issn=0952-8180&rft.eissn=1873-4529&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0952-8180(02)00349-5&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E71737531%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-70a09f3df7bf358065abe553f777d4cebaf0bb067eb58bd9983bdc8c365d4a283%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=71737531&rft_id=info:pmid/12031757&rfr_iscdi=true |