These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Anesthesia for termination of pregnancy: midazolam compared with methohexital.
    Author: Verma R, Ramasubramanian R, Sachar RM.
    Journal: Anesth Analg; 1985 Aug; 64(8):792-4. PubMed ID: 3160263.
    Abstract:
    Clinical effects of intermittent intravenous administration of midazolam were compared with those of methohexital in two groups of ten premedicated patients each undergoing suction termination of pregnancy under general anesthesia. Both groups received intravenous fentanyl (1 microgram/kg) 5 min prior to administration of the induction agent. No significant difference was found between the two groups in induction time and quality of anesthesia. The recovery time was significantly (17 min) longer in patients who received midazolam (P less than 0.0001). This study compared the clinical effects of midazolam with methohexital when these agents were administered intravenously by intermittent injection in 20 outpatients undergoing suction termination of pregnancy. Both groups were premedicated with intramuscular papaveretum and scopolamine 1 hour before the procedure and received fentanyl 5 minutes before the induction of anesthesia. The mean induction time between completion of administration of the intravenous anesthetic agent and the loss of eyelash reflex was 36.7 + or - 15.2 seconds among the 10 women who received midazolam and 41 + or - 34.5 seconds among the 10 women in the methohexital group; this difference was not statistically significant. The group receiving midazolam was given an induction dose of 8.8 + or - 1.5 mg and a total dose of 17.8 + or - 3.8 mg. The methohexital group received an induction dose of 58.5 + or - 9.1 mg and a total dose of 127.5 + or - 22.8 mg. Recovery (defined as the interval between discontinuation of nitrous oxide and the time when the patient responded purposively to oral commands) took 20.1 + or - 8.4 minutes in the midazolam group and 3.2 + or - 2.4 minutes in the methohexital group, a difference that was highly significant. The mean scores for the overall quality of anesthesia were not significantly different. No serious cardiorespiratory complications were noted in either group. This study shows that midazolam compares favorably with methohexital in terms of induction characteristics and the overall quality of anesthesia; however, the recovery time is significantly longer (17 minutes) with midazolam.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]