Search

Study Design: Prospective, randomized, single blind., Objective: To compare the effects of sevoflurane and propofol on lumbar-paraspinal-muscles regional blood flow, as well as bleeding when controlled hypotension is used., Summary of Background Data: Controlled hypotension is the technique of choice to reduce blood loss during spine surgery, but changes in blood flow occurring to lumbar paraspinal muscles during controlled hypotension with propofol and sevoflurane, as well as the entity of bleeding, are unknown., Methods: Blood flow was assessed by means of a laser Doppler flowmeter during the prehypotensive and hypotensive (defined as a 15% reduction of baseline mean arterial pressure) period in 28 patients (aged 28-73 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II) undergoing lumbar spine surgery. Patients were randomized to receive either sevoflurane or propofol as main anesthetic agent to achieve hypotension. At the end of the surgery, blood loss was calculated and intraoperative bleeding (Visual Analogue Scale ranging from 0 to 100) was evaluated by the surgeon. RESULTS.: Peripheral Blood flow was significantly greater in the propofol group both before and during the hypotensive period (median values of 32.7 FU vs. 7.7 and 38.5 FU vs. 10.5, respectively). Despite this fact, blood loss and intraoperative bleeding were significantly reduced when propofol had been used (P < 0.05)., Conclusion: Despite the greater blood flow when it is used, propofol causes less bleeding than sevoflurane during spine surgery and could be more indicated to produce hypotension during anesthesia. Moreover, it is possible to explain our findings hypothesizing a selective vasodilation of propofol (postcapillary, venous vasodilation), different from that of sevoflurane (precapillary, arteriolar vasodilation).

Purpose: To determine the plasma concentrations of propofol required to achieve different levels of sedation during monitored anesthesia care., Methods: Sixty ASA I-II, 18-65 yr-old patients, received a target-controlled continuous iv infusion of propofol. The target plasma concentration of propofol (Cpt) was initially set at 0.4 microg x ml(-1). Two minutes after calculated equilibrium between plasma and effect-site concentrations, the Cpt of propofol was increased by 0.2 microg x ml(-1) steps until the patient showed no reaction to squeezing the trapezius. The level of sedation was assessed immediately before each increase in propofol Cpt using the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) scale., Results: The Cpt of propofol required to induce lethargic response to name was 1.3 microg x ml(-1) (5 degrees and 95 degrees percentiles: 1.0 - 1.8 microg x ml(-1)), to obtain response after loud and repeated calling name was 1.7 microg x ml(-1) (1.2 - 2.2 microg x ml(-1)), to obtain response after prodding or shaking was 2.0 microg x ml(-1) (1.6 - 2.6 microg x ml(-1)), to obtain response after squeezing the trapezius was 2.4 microg x ml(-1) (1.8 - 3.0 microg x ml(-1)). Patients showed no response after squeezing the trapezius at 2.8 microg x ml(-1) (2.0 - 3.6 microg x ml(-1)). Correlation between Cpt propofol and sedation scores were r = 0.76, P < 0.0001., Conclusions: Target-controlled infusion of propofol provided easy and safe management of intraoperative sedation, allowing fast and predictable deepening in the level of sedation, while minimizing systemic side effects of intravenous sedation due to the minimal risk of overdosing the drug.