Sevoflurane versus halothane for induction of anesthesia in pediatric and adult patients.

Induction of anesthesia using an inhalation agent remains a fundamental technique due to its rapid induction and emergence. Sevoflurane is preferred over halothane for its faster induction of anesthesia and lesser complications. Studies on sevoflurane in pediatrics have established it as safe and effective. However, its effectiveness in adults is very limited. Hence, this study was conducted to compare the induction and intubating conditions, hemodynamic profiles, and emergence from anesthesia with sevoflurane and halothane in adults and pediatric patients. This randomized clinical study was carried out for a period of 2 years (November 2006-September 2008) in the Anesthesiology Department of a Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed to be) University. Eighty patients of American Society of Anesthesiologists Class I and II were randomly assigned to halothane group and sevoflurane group with 40 patients in each group. Patients were induced and intubated with increasing concentrations of halothane from 0.5% to 5% and sevoflurane 1% to 7% in 50% nitrous oxide and 50% oxygen mixture. Recordings of vitals including induction and intubation time, recovery characteristics, and recovery and discharge time was also recorded. There was a statistically significant difference between sevoflurane and halothane in the induction and intubation time indicating that sevoflurane had faster induction and shorter intubation time compared to that of halothane. Patients in halothane group had more incidence of coughing, intolerance, salivation, breathe holding, rigidity, and movement as compared to sevoflurane group. The mean time to consciousness, response to verbal commands, orientation, and recovery room discharge time was significantly shorter in sevoflurane group as compared to halothane group. Sevoflurane can be a suitable alternative to halothane for induction of anesthesia in patients with a shorter induction and intubation time with better hemodynamic stability. This study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (KIMSDU/IEC-307/028/14/11/2006).