Comparison of propofol and methohexital for deep sedation.

C. J. Meyers, S. B. Eisig, Richard A. Kraut

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to compare two sedation techniques for use in outpatient third molar surgery. Forty ASA class I or II volunteers were randomly allocated to two groups. All subjects received supplemental oxygen via a nasal hood, sublimaze (.0007 mg/kg [corrected] intravenous bolus), and midazolam (.5 mg/min) titrated to effect. Using an incremental bolus technique, group A then received methohexital, while group B received propofol. Both groups maintained stable mean arterial pressure, oxygen saturation, and end-tidal CO2 throughout the perioperative period. However, group A had a dramatic increase in heart rate (26.7% versus 13.9% for group B [P < .05]). Better postoperative psychomotor performance (P < .05) as measured by the Trieger Dot analysis was demonstrated by patients who received propofol. It was concluded that propofol is superior to methohexital for intravenous sedation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
Volume52
Issue number5
StatePublished - May 1994

Fingerprint

Deep Sedation
Methohexital
Propofol
Oxygen
Psychomotor Performance
Perioperative Period
Third Molar
Midazolam
Fentanyl
Nose
Volunteers
Arterial Pressure
Outpatients
Heart Rate

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)
  • Surgery

Cite this

@article{367e598f9c454645b430623b62afccc7,
title = "Comparison of propofol and methohexital for deep sedation.",
abstract = "The purpose of this investigation was to compare two sedation techniques for use in outpatient third molar surgery. Forty ASA class I or II volunteers were randomly allocated to two groups. All subjects received supplemental oxygen via a nasal hood, sublimaze (.0007 mg/kg [corrected] intravenous bolus), and midazolam (.5 mg/min) titrated to effect. Using an incremental bolus technique, group A then received methohexital, while group B received propofol. Both groups maintained stable mean arterial pressure, oxygen saturation, and end-tidal CO2 throughout the perioperative period. However, group A had a dramatic increase in heart rate (26.7{\%} versus 13.9{\%} for group B [P < .05]). Better postoperative psychomotor performance (P < .05) as measured by the Trieger Dot analysis was demonstrated by patients who received propofol. It was concluded that propofol is superior to methohexital for intravenous sedation.",
author = "Meyers, {C. J.} and Eisig, {S. B.} and Kraut, {Richard A.}",
year = "1994",
month = "5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "52",
journal = "Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery",
issn = "0278-2391",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of propofol and methohexital for deep sedation.

AU - Meyers, C. J.

AU - Eisig, S. B.

AU - Kraut, Richard A.

PY - 1994/5

Y1 - 1994/5

N2 - The purpose of this investigation was to compare two sedation techniques for use in outpatient third molar surgery. Forty ASA class I or II volunteers were randomly allocated to two groups. All subjects received supplemental oxygen via a nasal hood, sublimaze (.0007 mg/kg [corrected] intravenous bolus), and midazolam (.5 mg/min) titrated to effect. Using an incremental bolus technique, group A then received methohexital, while group B received propofol. Both groups maintained stable mean arterial pressure, oxygen saturation, and end-tidal CO2 throughout the perioperative period. However, group A had a dramatic increase in heart rate (26.7% versus 13.9% for group B [P < .05]). Better postoperative psychomotor performance (P < .05) as measured by the Trieger Dot analysis was demonstrated by patients who received propofol. It was concluded that propofol is superior to methohexital for intravenous sedation.

AB - The purpose of this investigation was to compare two sedation techniques for use in outpatient third molar surgery. Forty ASA class I or II volunteers were randomly allocated to two groups. All subjects received supplemental oxygen via a nasal hood, sublimaze (.0007 mg/kg [corrected] intravenous bolus), and midazolam (.5 mg/min) titrated to effect. Using an incremental bolus technique, group A then received methohexital, while group B received propofol. Both groups maintained stable mean arterial pressure, oxygen saturation, and end-tidal CO2 throughout the perioperative period. However, group A had a dramatic increase in heart rate (26.7% versus 13.9% for group B [P < .05]). Better postoperative psychomotor performance (P < .05) as measured by the Trieger Dot analysis was demonstrated by patients who received propofol. It was concluded that propofol is superior to methohexital for intravenous sedation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028436065&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028436065&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 8169705

VL - 52

JO - Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

JF - Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

SN - 0278-2391

IS - 5

ER -