The Use of Thiopentone/Propofol Admixture for Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion
K. S. J. Yeo, S. W. J. Kua, G. S. Teoh, Meng Keong Onsiong
Abstract
Open-access reader
K. S. J. Yeo, S. W. J. Kua, G. S. Teoh, Meng Keong Onsiong
Abstract
Open-access reader
An admixture of thiopentone and propofol was evaluated against propofol for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion. Eighty-one ASA 1 and 2 18- to 65-year-old patients, premedicated with 7.5 mg midazolam orally were assigned randomly to receive either propofol 1% or an admixture of thiopentone and propofol (1.25% and 0.5% respectively), both at a dose of 0.25 ml x kg(-1). Satisfactory conditions for insertion were achieved with the admixture, which was comparable to propofol (73% vs 85%, P>0.05). There was no statistical difference in the incidence or severity of gagging, coughing, inadequate jaw relaxation and laryngospasm. The incidence of hypotension was lower in the admixture group (51% vs 78%, P=0.02). The duration of apnoea was not different between the admixture and propofol group (mean 103s vs 109s respectively, P>0.05). We conclude that thiopentone/propofol admixture can be a suitable alternative to propofol for LMA insertion, producing less hypotension while allowing cost savings of up to 45%. An admixture of thiopentone and propofol (1.25% and 0.5% respectively) can produce suitable conditions compared to propofol 1%, for laryngeal mask insertion. In addition to cost containment, the admixture also produces less hypotension.
OpenAlex reports 13 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
An admixture of thiopentone and propofol was evaluated against propofol for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion. Eighty-one ASA 1 and 2 18- to 65-year-old patients, premedicated with 7.5 mg midazolam orally were assigned randomly to receive either propofol 1% or an admixture of thiopentone and propofol (1.25% and 0.5% respectively), both at a dose of 0.25 ml x kg(-1). Satisfactory conditions for insertion were achieved with the admixture, which was comparable to propofol (73% vs 85%, P>0.05). There was no statistical difference in the incidence or severity of gagging, coughing, inadequate jaw relaxation and laryngospasm. The incidence of hypotension was lower in the admixture group (51% vs 78%, P=0.02). The duration of apnoea was not different between the admixture and propofol group (mean 103s vs 109s respectively, P>0.05). We conclude that thiopentone/propofol admixture can be a suitable alternative to propofol for LMA insertion, producing less hypotension while allowing cost savings of up to 45%. An admixture of thiopentone and propofol (1.25% and 0.5% respectively) can produce suitable conditions compared to propofol 1%, for laryngeal mask insertion. In addition to cost containment, the admixture also produces less hypotension.
Key concepts: Propofol, Medicine, Laryngospasm, Anesthesia, Laryngeal mask airway, Mascara, Larynx, Midazolam