What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: RCT. Population: General anesthesia for elective surgery (n=60). Intervention: Sevoflurane vs. Halothane. Primary outcome: Induction time (time from face mask application to loss of eyelash reflex) (p=0.0001).

March 12, 2014Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental SciencesOpen Access

Sevofluran E Versus Halothane for General Anesthesia in P Ediatric Patients – A Comparative Study of Induction Time, Intubation Time and Emergence Time

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

Sevoflurane facilitated a significantly faster induction of anesthesia compared to halothane in pediatric patients, with a mean induction time of 136.0 seconds versus 156.09 seconds (P=0.0001).

Why the study?

Does sevoflurane reduce induction, intubation, and emergence times compared to halothane in pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia?

Population

60 pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia

Comparison

Sevoflurane inhalation vs Halothane inhalation

Design

RCT, randomly divided

Follow-up

Perioperative period

Authors

SBSantosh BhaskarChirayu Medical College & Hospital SZSameer Zutshi RCRoshan ChanchlaniAll India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhopal

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Supports preferring sevoflurane for faster pediatric induction; confirms its advantage over halothane in RCT.

Study Design

Type

RCT (n=60)

Blinding

Double-blind

Randomization

Randomly allocated

Multicenter

Structured PICO

Does sevoflurane reduce induction, intubation, and emergence times compared to halothane in pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia?

Population

60 pediatric patients aged 1 to 12 years weighing less than 20 kg undergoing elective surgeries requiring tracheal intubation, randomized to receive sevoflurane or halothane.

Intervention

Sevoflurane inhalation (incremental dosing up to 8%, maintained at 2.6% with 60% N2O and 40% O2)

Comparator

Halothane inhalation (incremental dosing up to 5%, maintained at 0.56% with 60% N2O and 40% O2)

Outcome

Induction time, intubation time, and emergence time

Main Result

Mean Difference: -20.09

Absolute Event Rate: 136% vs 156.09%

p-value: p=0.0001

Sevoflurane provides significantly faster induction, intubation, and emergence compared to halothane for pediatric general anesthesia.

Limitations

Physical limitation of the sevoflurane vaporizer design (maximum 8% output) may have offset the expected increase in speed of induction.
Initial potent agent concentration and step increments were slightly lower in the sevoflurane group (0.4 MAC) than in the halothane group (0.5 MAC).
The rate of increasing sevoflurane concentration was arbitrarily chosen to match halothane, which may have limited the observed difference in induction times.

Cite This Study

Bhaskar et al. (2014) conducted an RCT in General anesthesia for elective surgery (n=60). Sevoflurane vs. Halothane was evaluated on Induction time (time from face mask application to loss of eyelash reflex) (p=0.0001). Sevoflurane facilitated a significantly faster induction of anesthesia compared to halothane in pediatric patients, with a mean induction time of 136.0 seconds versus 156.09 seconds (P=0.0001).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a859d87ee60e6e86dae66e5 https://doi.org/10.14260/jemds/2014/2206

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Sevofluran E Versus Halothane for General Anesthesia in P Ediatric Patients – A Comparative Study of Induction Time, Intubation Time and Emergence Time

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Study Design

Structured PICO

Main Result

Limitations

Cite This Study

Sevofluran E Versus Halothane for General Anesthesia in P Ediatric Patients – A Comparative Study of Induction Time, Intubation Time and Emergence Time

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Study Design

Structured PICO

Main Result

Limitations

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider