Comparison of inhalational (VIMA) and intravenous (TIVA) anaesthesia in gynaecological procedures
Abstracts and Programme: European Society of Anaesthesiologists; 9th Annual Meeting with the Swedish Society of Anaesthesiology; Gothenburg, Sweden, 7-10 April 2001: Evidence Based Medicine, Quality Insurance and Safety
Center of Anaesthesiology, J.W. Goethe-University, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, D-60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Background and goal of the study: General anaesthesia can be achieved by administration of a volatile anaesthetic alone (VIMA = volatile induction and maintenance of anaesthesia) or by a total intravenous technique (TIVA) . Our study compared both techniques during induction and emergence from anaesthesia.
Materials and methods: After ethics committee approval, 142 ASA I-II patients received randomly either VIMA (n = 70) or TIVA (n = 72). Induction in the VIMA group was achieved by inhalation of a mixture of 8% sevoflurane, 50 Vol% N2O and 42 Vol% O2. Anaesthesia was maintained with 2-3 MAC sevoflurane, 66 Vol% N2O and 31% O2. TIVA consisted of remifentanil (Induction: 0.3 μg kg−1 min−1, maintenance: 0.1-0.3 μg kg−1 min−1) and propofol (induction: 4 μg mL−1, maintenance: 2.5-3.5 μg mL−1). Adjustment of anaesthetic depth was guided clinically. We determined time required for induction and emergence and observed side-effects.
Results and discussion: Demographic data and operative times were comparable; however, there was a significant difference with regard to incidence of PONV and shivering. TABLE
Conclusions: Both techniques are suitable for gynaecological procedures. However, due to a lower incidence of PONV and shivering during the immediate postanaesthesia period, TIVA is superior to VIMA.
1 Jellish WS, Lien CA, Fontenot HJ, Hall R. Anaesth Analg
The abstracts published in this supplement have been typeset from camera-ready copies prepared by the authors. Every effort has been made to reproduce faithfully the abstracts as submitted. These abstracts have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the European Society of Anaesthesiologists and have not been subjected to review nor editing by the European Journal Of Anaesthesiology. However, no responsibility is assumed by the organisers for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. Because of the rapid advances in medical sciences, we recommend that independent verification of diagnoses and drug doses should be made.© 2001 European Society of Anaesthesiology