title: Comparison of the anaesthetic requirement with target-controlled infusion of propofol to insert the laryngeal tube vs. the laryngeal mask.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The target effect-site concentration of propofol to insert a laryngeal mask airway was recently reported as almost 5 microg mL(-1). The present study aimed to determine the target effect-site concentration with target-controlled infusion of propofol to place classical larnygeal mask airway or current laryngeal tube in adult patients.
  
  
  METHODS
  We included 40 patients scheduled for short gynaecological and radiological procedures under general anaesthesia in a randomized, double-blind manner using the Dixon's up-and-down statistical method. Monitoring included standard cardiorespiratory monitors, and bispectral index monitoring was used for all patients. Anaesthesia was conducted with a target-controlled infusion system: Diprifusor. The initial target plasma concentration of propofol was 5 microg mL(-1), and was changed stepwise by 0.5 microg mL(-1) increments according to Dixon's up-and-down method. Criteria for acceptable insertion were: Muzi's score < or = 2, and mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate or bispectral index variation <20% the baseline values.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Target effect-site concentration of propofol required to insert laryngeal tube was 6.3 +/- 0.3 microg mL(-1) with Dixon method and ED50 was 6.1 microg mL(-1) (5.9-6.4) with logistic regression method. In the case of larnygeal mask airway they were 7.3 +/- 0.2 microg mL(-1) (Dixon method) and 7.3 microg mL(-1) (7.1-7.5; with logistic regression) respectively (P < 0.05). ED95 (logistic regression) was 6.8 microg mL(-1) (5.9-7.6) for laryngeal tube and 7.7 microg mL(-1) (7.3-8.0) for larnygeal mask airway (P < 0.05). Haemodynamic incidents were 55% in the larnygeal mask airway group vs. 30% in the laryngeal tube group (P < 0.05).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The target effect-site concentration of propofol for insertion of laryngeal tube was lower than for larnygeal mask airway (P < 0.05), with a consequent reduction of the propofol induced haemodynamic side-effects.
authors.affiliation: Centre Hospitalier et Universitaire de Bordeaux, Département d'Anesthésie et Réanimation III, Bordeaux Cedex, France. philippe.richebe@u-bordeaux2.fr
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Richebé
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Rivalan
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Baudouin
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Sesay
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Sztark
authors.forename: A-M
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: Cros
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Maurette
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000771:Anesthesia, Intravenous / Q000379:methods*; D018686:Anesthetics, Intravenous / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D005260:Female; D006439:Hemodynamics / Q000187:drug effects; D006801:Humans; D007262:Infusions, Intravenous; D007442:Intubation, Intratracheal; D017214:Laryngeal Masks; D016015:Logistic Models; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D015742:Propofol / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects
chemical_list: D018686:Anesthetics, Intravenous; D015742:Propofol