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.
authors.affiliation: Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY 10467-2490.
authors.forename: C J
authors.initials: CJ
authors.lastname: Meyers
authors.forename: S B
authors.initials: SB
authors.lastname: Eisig
authors.forename: R A
authors.initials: RA
authors.lastname: Kraut
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000556:Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; D000762:Anesthesia Recovery Period; D000766:Anesthesia, Dental / Q000379:methods*; D001794:Blood Pressure / Q000187:drug effects; D002245:Carbon Dioxide / Q000097:blood; D016292:Procedural Sedation / Q000379:methods*; D006339:Heart Rate / Q000187:drug effects*; D006801:Humans; D008723:Methohexital / Q000494:pharmacology*; D008964:Molar, Third / Q000601:surgery; D010100:Oxygen / Q000097:blood; D015742:Propofol / Q000494:pharmacology*; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000187:drug effects; D014081:Tooth Extraction; D014095:Tooth, Impacted / Q000601:surgery
chemical_list: D002245:Carbon Dioxide; D008723:Methohexital; D010100:Oxygen; D015742:Propofol