[Does propofol have advantages over midazolam and isoflurane? Comparative study of 2 total intravenous anesthesia techniques using midazolam and propofol, versus balanced anesthesia with isoflurane]

Abstract

Objectives: To compare two techniques for total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA): midazolam-alfentanil-flumazenil and propofol-alfentanil, contrasting them with combined anesthesia (thiopental-isoflurane-alfentanil) and assessing the efficacy of flumazenil in continuous perfusion for preventing resedation in TIVA with midazolam.

Patients and methods: The efficacy and clinical tolerance of the 3 anesthetic techniques with propofol, midazolam or isoflurane were studied in 63 patients undergoing elective breast, lumbar or gynecological surgery. Anesthetic induction was achieved with midazolam 0.3 mg/kg-1 (group M), propofol 2.5 mg/kg-1 (group P) or thiopental 3 mg/kg-1 (group I); all patients also received 50 micrograms/kg-1 alfentanil and vecuronium bromide 0.12 mg/kg-1/h-1. Maintenance was achieved with midazolam in perfusion at 0.12 mg/kg-1/h-1 (group M); propofol in perfusion at 7 mg/kg-1/h-1 and a pre-incision dose of 1.5 mg/kg-1 (group P); and isoflurane at 1.15% (group I). The 3 groups also received one pre-incision dose of alfentanil 25 micrograms/kg-1 and post-incision perfusion at 60 micrograms/kg-1/h-1. The infusion of alfentanil was changed by amounts of 20 micrograms/kg-1/h-1 in accordance with the patient's response to surgery. After surgery patients in group M received flumazenil 0.5 mg i.v. over 30 sec and a perfusion of flumazenil 0.5 mg over 60 min. Parameters indicating efficacy were: 1) total dose and timing of alfentanil; 2) number of instances of inadequate anesthesia; 3) peri-operative amnesia; 4) times of awakening and extubation after surgery, and 5) the number of patients in each group who required naloxone. Parameters indicating tolerance were: 1) hemodynamic variables; 2) the number of postoperative desaturations; 3) level of sedation, comprehension and motor coordination and orientation; 4) the "G/g detection" test and the memory recall test; 5) adverse side effects; 6) need for postoperative analgesia, and 7) evaluation of the anesthetic technique.

Results: The 3 techniques afforded effective control of hemodynamic response to intubation and surgical incision. Anesthetic maintenance was easy and safe with isoflurane and propofol. Higher doses of alfentanil, however, were needed with midazolam and we found a higher incidence of signs of superficial anesthesia. Reversion of midazolam with flumazenil 0.5 mg i.v. produced earlier awakening, although this was followed later by relapse into hypno-sedation that could not be prevented with a perfusion of flumazenil. Although recovery from anesthesia was slower with propofol than with isoflurane, we observed no differences in level of sedation, motor coordination and postoperative comprehension. Maintenance with isoflurane produced a higher incidence of adverse side effects such as tremors and nausea after surgery.

Conclusions: None of the TIVA techniques proved superior in all the parameters studied during anesthetic maintenance when compared with balanced isoflurane-alfentanil, although the propofol-alfentanil combination was found to be superior to that of midazolam-alfentanil. After anesthesia, however, recovery was better with the association of propofol-alfentanil and adverse side effects were fewer. Flumazenil at the doses used was ineffective for preventing resedation due to midazolam.