dc.contributorVanegas Saavedra, Alberto
dc.contributorRodríguez Sánchez, Geovanny
dc.creatorPérez López, Diana Carolina
dc.date.accessioned2012-07-26T13:36:01Z
dc.date.available2012-07-26T13:36:01Z
dc.date.created2012-07-26T13:36:01Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifierhttp://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/3626
dc.identifierhttps://doi.org/10.48713/10336_3626
dc.description.abstractAlthough Propofol and opioids combinations are widely used to induce and maintain adequate anesthesia and analgesia, decrease the dose of inducer, increase stability and suppress hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation, there are no studies comparing Manual Total Intravenous Anesthesia using Remifentanil - Propofol versus Fentanyl - Propofol controlled by Stangraf. Objective: To compare the time of awakening and the time of discharge between two techniques of Manual Total Intravenous Anesthesia used in the Hospital Occidente de Kennedy, one based on Propofol - Remifentanil and another based on Propofol - Fentanyl. Methods: This was an cross-sectional study done in 43 patients undergoing surgery under Total Intravenous Anesthesia in the Hospital Occidente de Kennedy. Data was analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilks, t-Student and Mann Whitney tests, and Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients, using SPSS version 20 for Windows. A p value <0.05 was accepted as statistically significant. Results: When comparing the two techniques, we found no statistically significant differences in the evaluated times. The average awakening time was 10.1 minutes and 10.2 minutes for Fentanyl and Remifentanil respectly. The discharge time was 11.9 minutes with Fentanyl and 11.5 minutes with Remifentanil. Conclusions: the use of Propofol - Fentanyl guided by Stangraf is equivalent to the use of Remifentanil - Propofol as to the time of awakening and discharge. Further studies are required to corroborate these findings.
dc.languagespa
dc.publisherUniversidad del Rosario
dc.publisherEspecialización en Anestesiología HOK
dc.publisherFacultad de Medicina
dc.rightshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co/
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rightsAbierto (Texto completo)
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 2.5 Colombia
dc.rightsEL AUTOR, manifiesta que la obra objeto de la presente autorización es original y la realizó sin violar o usurpar derechos de autor de terceros, por lo tanto la obra es de exclusiva autoría y tiene la titularidad sobre la misma.
dc.source1. Singh Bajwa SJ, Bajwa SK, Kaur J. Saudi J. Comparison of two drug combinations in total intravenous anesthesia: propofol-ketamine and propofol-fentanyl. Saudi J Anaesth. 2010 May;4(2):72-9.
dc.source2. Vanegas Saavedra A. Anestesia Intravenosa, 2 ed. Bogotá: Editorial Médica Internacional, 2008. p. 8, 296-324, 361-372, 422-429.
dc.source3. Mirakhur RK, Morgan M. Intravenous anaesthesia: a step forward. Anaesthesia. 1998 Apr;53 Suppl 1:1-3.
dc.source4. Lichtenbelt BJ, Mertens M, Vuyk J. Strategies to optimise propofol-opioid anaesthesia. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2004;43(9):577-93.
dc.source5. Lentschener C, Ghimouz A, Bonnichon P, Pépion C, Gomola A, Ozier Y. Remifentanil-propofol vs. sufentanil-propofol: optimal combinations in clinical anesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2003 Jan;47(1):84-9.
dc.source6. Beers R, Camporesi E. Remifentanil update: clinical science and utility. CNS Drugs. 2004;18(15):1085-104.
dc.source7. Schraag S, Mohl U, Hirsch M, Stolberg E, Georgieff M. Recovery from opioid anesthesia: the clinical implication of context-sensitive half-times. Anesth Analg. 1998 Jan;86(1):184-9.
dc.source8. Russell D. Intravenous anaesthesia: manual infusion schemes versus TCI systems. Anaesthesia. 1998 Apr;53 Suppl 1:42-5.
dc.source9. Guillén-Dolores Y, Lugo-Goytia G. Eficacia clínica de una regla de cálculo para la dosificación de propofol en comparación con diprifusor utilizando índice biespectral. Rev. Mex. Anest. 2009; 32(4): 214-222.
dc.source10. Leslie K, Clavisi O, Hargrove J. Target-controlled infusion versus manually-controlled infusion of propofol for general anaesthesia or sedation in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jul 16;(3):CD006059.
dc.source11. Friesen RH, Veit AS, Archibald DJ, Campanini RS. A comparison of remifentanil and fentanyl for fast track paediatric cardiac anaesthesia. Paediatr Anaesth. 2003 Feb;13(2):122-5.
dc.source12. Maltepe F, Kocaayan E, Ugurlu BS, Akdeniz B, Guneri S. Comparison of remifentanil and fentanyl in anaesthesia for elective cardioversion. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2006 Jun;34(3):353-7.
dc.source13. Kovac AL, Summers KL. Comparison of remifentanil versus fentanyl general anesthesia for short outpatient urologic procedures. Signa vitae 2009; 4(2): 23 – 29.
dc.source14. Sizlan A, Göktac U, Özhan C, Özhan MÖ, Orhan ME. Comparison of remifentanil, alfentanil, and fentanyl co-administered with propofol to facilitate laryngeal mask insertion. Turk J Med Sci. 2010; 40(1): 63-70.
dc.sourceinstname:Universidad del Rosario
dc.sourcereponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocUR
dc.subjectAnestesia total intravenosa
dc.subjectRemifentanil
dc.subjectFentanil
dc.subjectPropofol
dc.subjectStangraf
dc.subjectTiempo de descarga
dc.subjectTiempo de despertar
dc.titleComparación del tiempo de despertar y tiempo de descarga entre dos técnicas de anestesia total intravenosa manual : Remifentanil vs Fentanil.
dc.typemasterThesis


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución