Introduction The effects of an anesthetic agent on the hemodynamic stability are of prime importance in patients with compromised hemodynamics. Although comparative studies of sevoflurane and propofol are reported, most of these are aimed to assess maintenance and early postoperative recovery. There are very few studies on hemodynamic changes occurring with these two agents. This study compares the hemodynamic stability, patient acceptance, and cost of intravenous (IV) propofol versus inhalational (IH) sevoflurane for the induction of anesthesia. Methods This prospective, randomized comparative study was conducted among 80 patients with American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade-I requiring general anesthesia (GA) for elective surgical procedures. The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee and was conducted as per the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines. Enrolled patients were randomized to receive either intravenous (IV) propofol 2 mg/kg (n=40) or gradual inhalational (IH) induction with sevoflurane (n=40). All patients were maintained with sevoflurane 2% in 67% nitrous oxide (N₂O) and O₂. Hemodynamic parameters like pulse rate and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were monitored every minute up to five minutes. Patients' acceptance was assessed on a 10-item questionnaire, and the cost of anesthesia was assessed based on the anesthetic requirement. The hemodynamic parameters were compared between the two groups using two-way repeat-measures ANOVA. The incidence of hypotension was compared using Fischer's test.  Results The two groups were similar at baseline with respect to the demography and other baseline characteristics. There was greater (p<0.05) fall in MAP with propofol induction (28.48%) compared to sevoflurane (14.61%). Greater reduction in pulse rate (p<0.05) with sevoflurane (9.18) induction was observed compared to propofol (5.28). Patient acceptance for both drugs was similar (p>0.05). Although sevoflurane was unpleasant, propofol injection was painful. Ninety percent of patients preferred propofol for repeat anesthesia as against 85% of patients with sevoflurane. Considering the quantity of anesthetic consumed and the unit cost, propofol was more costly as compared to sevoflurane. Conclusion Sevoflurane maintains better hemodynamic stability compared to propofol, and patient acceptance of both drugs is similar. Induction with sevoflurane was found to be cheaper as compared to propofol induction.

Any technique that employs a fresh gas flow that is less than the alveolar ventilation can be classified as low-flow anaesthesia. The complexities involved in the calculation of uptake of anaesthetic agents during the closed-circuit anaesthesia made this technique less popular. However, the awareness of the dangers of theatre pollution with trace amounts of the anaesthetic agents and the prohibitively high cost of the new inhalational agents, have helped in the rediscovery of low-flow anaesthesia. Moreover, the time has arrived for each of us, the practicing anaesthesiologists, to move towards the practice of low-flow anaesthesia, to achieve lesser theatre and environmental pollution and also to make anaesthesia more economical. The article also reviews low-flow anaesthesia (LFA) in paediatrics, recent advances such as automated LFA and updates on currently undergoing research to retrieve and reuse anaesthetic agents.

Even when anaesthesia does not represent a major part of the expense of a given surgical operation, reducing costs is not negligible because the large number of patients passing through a department of anaesthesia accounts for a huge annual budget. Volatile anaesthetics contribute 20% of the drug expenses in anaesthesia, coming just behind the myorelaxants; however, the cost of halogenated agents has potential for savings because a significant part of the delivered amount is wasted when a non- or partial-rebreathing system is used. The cost of inhaled agents is related to more than the amount taken up; it also depends on their market prices, their relative potencies, the amount of vapour released per millilitre of liquid, and last but not least the fresh-gas flow rate (FGF) delivered to the vaporizer--the most important factor determining the cost of anaesthesia. Poorly soluble agents like desflurane and sevoflurane facilitate the control of low-flow anaesthesia and reduce the duration of temporary high-flow phases to rapidly wash in or adjust the circuit gas concentrations. Modelling low-flow or minimal-flow anaesthesia will help anaesthetists to understand the kinetics of inhaled agents in those circumstances and to design their own clinical protocols. The monitoring facilities present on modern anaesthesia machines should convince clinicians that low- or even minimal-flow anaesthesia would not jeopardize the safety of their patients. Cost containment requires primarily a decrease in FGFs, but it may also be influenced by a rational use of the available halogenated agents. Isoflurane, the cheapest generic agent, might be advantageous for maintenance of anaesthesia of less than 3 hours. Sevoflurane is the agent of choice for inhalational induction and might also be used for maintenance. Desflurane might be preferred for long anaesthetics where rapid recovery will generate savings in the PACU.

Seven academic centres studied 302 patients, using desflurane, enflurane, halothane, or isoflurane using circle-systems and Dräger Julian anaesthetic machines, with fresh gas flows (V(F)) of 3, 1, and 0.5 litre min(-1). Volatile agent partial pressures in the breathing system were recorded and agent consumptions measured by weighing.

At these flows, desflurane consumption depended on V(F). In contrast, halothane consumption was not influenced by V(F). Isoflurane and enflurane showed differences in consumption between flows of 0.5 and 3 litre min(-1). Stepwise linear regression suggested that besides V(F), other factors influenced consumption of the more soluble agents (sex, age, weight, height, altitude, and temperature). The partial pressure ratios were independent of V(F) for desflurane (end-tidal to fresh gas=0.8), but the ratios of the more soluble agents varied with V(F) (end-tidal to fresh gas=0.3-0.7).

At V(F) that involves significant re-breathing, consumption of soluble agents depends only partially on V(F). These results can be explained using Mapleson's hydraulic analogue model.

Clinical and economic factors that are important to consider when selecting anaesthesia for day-case surgery can differ from those for inpatient anaesthesia. Patients undergoing day-case surgery tend to be healthier and have shorter durations of surgery. They expect less anxiety before surgery, amnesia for the surgical experience, a rapid return to normal (normal mentation with minimal pain and nausea) after surgery, and lower expenses. However, the latter 2 expectations can conflict; older generic drugs have lower acquisition costs but often impose longer recovery times. Longer recovery periods can increase costs by prolonging the time to discharge from labour-intensive areas such as the operating suite or the post-anaesthesia recovery unit. The challenge for today's anaesthetist is to use newer drugs judiciously to minimise their expense without compromising the rate or quality of recovery. Several approaches can secure these aims. Most apply the least anaesthetic needed. 'Least anaesthetic' may mean the particular form of anaesthetic (e.g. local infiltration with monitored anaesthesia care versus a general anaesthetic), or may mean the delivery of the smallest effective dose, perhaps guided by anaesthetic monitors such as end-tidal analysers or the bispectral index. For patients requiring general anaesthesia, a combination of several drugs usually secures the closest approach to the ideal. Drug combinations used usually include a short-acting properative anxiolytic (e.g. midazolam), intravenous propofol (a short-acting potent anxiolytic and amnestic agent) for induction of anaesthesia (and sometimes for maintenance) and primary maintenance of anaesthesia with inhaled nitrous oxide combined with a poorly soluble (low solubility produces rapid recovery; the least soluble is desflurane) potent inhaled anaesthetic delivered at a low inflow rate (to minimise cost). Although old, nitrous oxide is inexpensive and has favourable pharmacokinetic and cardiovascular advantages; however, it is limited in its anaesthetic/amnestic potency, and has the capacity to increase nausea. In children, induction of anaesthesia is often accomplished with sevoflurane rather than desflurane; although sevoflurane is modestly more soluble than desflurane, it is non-pungent whereas desflurane is pungent. Moderate- or short-acting opioids (fentanyl is popular) or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (especially ketorolac), or local anaesthetics are added to secure analgesia during and after surgery. Similarly, when needed, moderate- or short-acting muscle relaxants are selected. Before the end of anaesthesia, an intravenous antiemetic may be given. With this drug combination, patients usually awaken within minutes after anaesthesia and can often move themselves to the vehicle for transport to the recovery unit. These combinations of anaesthetics and techniques minimise use of expensive drugs while expediting recovery (again minimising cost) with minimal or no compromise in the quality of recovery.

We evaluated the effect of the fresh gas flow (FGF) rate and the anesthetic technique on the ability to control the acute hyperdynamic response to a specific surgical stimulus during surgery in 90 consenting ASA physical status I-III patients undergoing lower abdominal procedures. After the administration of midazolam 2 mg IV, anesthesia was induced in all patients with propofol 1.5 mg/kg IV and fentanyl 1 microg/kg IV and was initially maintained with desflurane or isoflurane, 0.7 minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration, at total FGF rates of either 1 or 3 L/min. In response to the surgical stimulation of skin incision and retropubic dissection, an increase in mean arterial pressure (MAP) >20% above the preincision baseline MAP value provoked a stepwise increase in the inspired concentration of the volatile anesthetic or the IV administration of a variable-rate infusion of esmolol. At both FGF rates, the acute hemodynamic response to surgical stimulation was more efficiently treated by increasing the inspired concentration of desflurane than isoflurane. At 1 L/min, the average time to control the increase in MAP was significantly shorter with desflurane (17+/-12 min) compared with isoflurane (29+/-16 min), with 60% of the patients in the isoflurane group requiring rescue therapy. When an esmolol infusion was used to control the increase in MAP, supplementation with fentanyl was required in 40% and 53% of patients anesthetized with desflurane and isoflurane, respectively. In conclusion, desflurane provided more rapid and reliable control of acute hemodynamic responses to surgical stimulation than isoflurane or esmolol when the volatile anesthetics were administered at low FGF rates.

At low fresh gas flow rates (1 L/min), desflurane more successfully and rapidly controlled the acute hemodynamic responses to painful surgical stimuli than isoflurane.

Due to its low solubility and negligible metabolism, desflurane is assumed to be especially suitable for application by low-flow anaesthetic techniques. The aim of this clinical investigation was the development of a standardised dosing scheme for low-flow and minimal-flow desflurane anaesthesia.

One hundred six ASA status I-II patient were assigned to six groups according to the duration of the initial high-flow phase, fresh gas flow, and fresh-gas desflurane concentration. The median age, height, body weight, and constitution of the groups was comparable. After an initial high-flow phase using 4.4 l/min, the fresh gas flow was reduced to 0.5 l/min (minimal-flow anaesthesia) or 1.0 1/min (low-flow anaesthesia). Inspired nitrous oxide concentrations were maintained at 60% to 70%. Using different standardised schemes of vaporizer settings, inspired desflurane concentrations were applied in the range from 3.4% to 8.7%, i.e., between 1 and 1.5 MAC. Inspired and expired desflurane concentrations were measured continuously by the side-stream technique and recorded on-line. Venous blood samples were taken immediately prior to induction and 45 min after flow reduction for measurement of carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb) concentration).

In the 10- to 15-min initial phase during which a high fresh gas flow of 4.4 l/min was used, the inspired desflurane concentration reached values in the range of 90%-95% of the fresh gas concentration. In low-flow anaesthesia this concentration could be maintained without any alteration of the vaporizer setting, whereas in minimal-flow anaesthesia with flow reduction the fresh gas concentration had to be increased by 1% to 2%: The quotient calculated by division of the inspired desflurane concentration by its fresh gas concentration (Q = CI/CF) ranges between 0.65 and 0.75 in animal-flow and between 0.80 and 0.85 in low-flow anaesthesia. If use was made of the wide output range of the desflurane vaporizer, the inspired concentration could be increased rapidly by about 5% in 8 min, although the flow was kept constant at 0.5 l/min. Compared with its value prior to induction (2.13 +/- 1.05%), the COHb concentration decreased statistically significantly by about 0.7% during the 1st hour of minimal-flow anaesthesia (1.42 +/- 1.01%). In no case was a COHb concentration observed that exceeded threatening or even toxic values, although the soda lime was changed routinely only once a week.

The pharmacokinetic properties of desflurane, resulting in especially low individual uptake, and the wide output range of the vaporizer facilitate the use of low-flow anesthetic techniques in routine clinical practice. Even in minimal-flow anesthesia, the duration of the initial high-flow phase can be shortened to min. If the flow is reduced to 1 l/min, the inspired desflurane concentration achieved in the initial high-flow phase can be maintained without any alteration of the vaporizer setting. In minimal-flow anesthesia, however, with flow reduction to 0.5 l/min, the fresh gas concentration has to be increased to a value 1%-2% higher than the inspired nominal value. Due to the wide dialing range of the desflurane vaporizer, the amount of vapour delivered into the breathing system can be increased to about 110 ml/min even at a flow of 0.5 l/min. The large amount of agent that can be delivered into the system even under low-flow conditions, together with the very low individual uptake, results in a time-constant that is sufficient short for the clinically required rapid increase in inspired desflurane concentrations. The short time-constant of low-flow desflurane anaesthesia improves the control of the anaesthetic concentration. If all measures are taken to safely avoid inadvertent drying out of the soda lime, there is no evidence that low-flow anaesthesia with desflurane is liable to increase the risk of accidental carbon monoxide poisoning. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)