BACKGROUND: The 2% formulation of the intravenous anaesthetic agent, propofol (Diprivan), delivers half the amount of lipid compared with the original 1% formulation. This may provide an acceptable alternative for patients who have an impaired ability to metabolise lipids. METHODS: This study was a multicentre, randomised, open comparison of parallel groups. Seventy-three adult patients undergoing elective craniotomy in neurosurgery were randomised to receive either propofol 1% (10 mg/ml) or propofol 2% (20 mg/ml) for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia. RESULTS: Analysis of induction time (199 s, 1%; 202 s, 2%; p > 0.05) and induction dose (1.13 mg/kg, 1.12 mg/kg; p > 0.05) shows that propofol 1% and propofol 2% are pharmacodynamically equivalent. Both formulations were similar regarding overall administration rates, recovery times, haemodynamic variables and tolerability. Plasma triglyceride levels, were lower in the propofol 2% group compared with the propofol 1% group, and significantly lower (p < 0.05) from 1 to 4 hours after induction. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that propofol 2% is as effective and as well-tolerated as propofol 1% for anaesthesia and is an acceptable alternative to propofol 1% in patients undergoing elective craniotomy in neurosurgery. The lower lipid load suggests it may be of particular benefit to patients with disorders of lipid metabolism

Propofol 1% and propofol 2% are equally effective and well tolerated durnig anesthesia of patients undergoing elective craniotomy for neurosurgical procedures

ORI, CARLO;FACCO, ENRICO;GIRON, GIAMPIERO;
2000

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The 2% formulation of the intravenous anaesthetic agent, propofol (Diprivan), delivers half the amount of lipid compared with the original 1% formulation. This may provide an acceptable alternative for patients who have an impaired ability to metabolise lipids. METHODS: This study was a multicentre, randomised, open comparison of parallel groups. Seventy-three adult patients undergoing elective craniotomy in neurosurgery were randomised to receive either propofol 1% (10 mg/ml) or propofol 2% (20 mg/ml) for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia. RESULTS: Analysis of induction time (199 s, 1%; 202 s, 2%; p > 0.05) and induction dose (1.13 mg/kg, 1.12 mg/kg; p > 0.05) shows that propofol 1% and propofol 2% are pharmacodynamically equivalent. Both formulations were similar regarding overall administration rates, recovery times, haemodynamic variables and tolerability. Plasma triglyceride levels, were lower in the propofol 2% group compared with the propofol 1% group, and significantly lower (p < 0.05) from 1 to 4 hours after induction. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that propofol 2% is as effective and as well-tolerated as propofol 1% for anaesthesia and is an acceptable alternative to propofol 1% in patients undergoing elective craniotomy in neurosurgery. The lower lipid load suggests it may be of particular benefit to patients with disorders of lipid metabolism
2000
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/2467188
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact