Özet:

In this study, we aimed at evaluating the effects of desfluran and sevofluran on respiratory mechanics in groups of patients smoking and not drinking. Our study was taken between 30-55 years of age, ASA I-II, 100 patients with no lung disease. In the smoking and non-smoking groups, half of the patients disflurated in the other half using sevofluran, 4 groups of 25 people were formed. In the standard after-induction execution, 6% desfluran or 2% sevofluran was applied in the mixture of O2/dry air. Patients' dynamic compliance (DK), airway resistance (HYD cmH2O/L/sn) and top airway pressure values were recorded after induction, 5th, 25th minutes after entubation, and at the end of the surgery. There were no differences in demographic and hemodynamic parameters. In those who do not smoke in the Desfluran group, the 5th minute after entubation is HYD (7.36±1.18) While high compared to the induction period (6.56±1.08) (p<0.01), the 25.min value (6.36±1.35) was different from the initial value. If you smoke, the 5th minute and 25th minute values were higher compared to the beginning (respectively p<0.001, p<0.01). In non-smoking, the HYD was lower compared to those who drank in 5 and 25 minutes (p<0.001). In the Sevofluran group, those who smoked and didn’t drink had a lower HYD in the 5th and 25th minutes compared to the previous induction (p<0.001). There was no difference between the smoking and the non-smoking group. In comparison with the Sevofluran and desfluran groups, HYD in the desfluran group was higher in all measurement periods except the basal values. Compliance and height pressure changes were in line with changes in HYD. In literature, it is that in two of the three compared studies of two agencies, the responses of the sevofluran are superior in suppression, and in one there is no difference. The effect of smoking has not been studied. When we compared only two inhalation agents in our study, the broncho-constructor responses to entubation were more severe in the desfluran group. While there was no difference between those who smoked and those who didn’t drink in the Sevofluran group, the responses in those who smoked in the Desfluran group were greater. After all, it was found that in patients smoking and with bronchial hyperactivity, sevofluran could be preferred to desfluran. The Comparison of Effects of Sevoflurane and Desflurane on Respiratory Mechanics in Smokers and Non-smokers In our research we aimed to evaluate effects of Sevoflurane and Desflurane on Respiratory Mechanics in Smokers and Non-smokers. 100 patients who were with an age between 30 and 55 years, in ASA I-II risk group and who does not have any lung diseases were participated. With use of Sevoflurane and desflurane randomly in smokers and non-smokers patient groups, 4 patient groups that each has 25 patients were constituted. After a standard anesthetic induction, desflurane of 6% and sevoflurane of 2% in O2/dry air of 50% applied for maintenance. Dynamic compliance, airway resistance and peak airway pressure of patients were recorded after induction (ind.In the 5th (in the 5th) 5) and 25th (ent.25) after intubation. Demographic characteristics between patient groups did not differ significantly. In nonsmokers in desflurane group, airway resistance values in ent.25 (6.36±1.35) were not different than baseline value, whereas airway resistance in ent.5 (7.36±1.18) They were greater than in. period (6.56±1.08; p<0.01). In smokers, either 5th or 25th minute values were greater than baseline value (p<0.001, p<0.01, respectively). Airway resistance (in ent.5 and ent.25) of smokers in desflurane group were greater than non-smokers (p<0.001). In the sevoflurane group the airway resistance values at the 5th. and 25th. minutes were either in the smokers or non-smokers lower than the baseline values (p<0.001). Values between smokers and non-smokers did not differ from each other. Airway resistance in desflurane group were greater and compliance in desflurane group were lower than in sevoflurane group in all measurement periods except for baseline values. The changes in Dynamic compliance and peak airway pressure were compatible with the changes in the airway resistance. We found three articles who have compared these two agents, and in two of them it is that sevoflurane is better than desflurane in suppressing the airway responses, in the other one it was not found any difference. The effects of smoking are not studied. We found that bronchoconstriction responses to intubation in desflurane group were more severe than the responses in sevoflurane group. The responses in smokers did not differ from non-smokers in sevoflurane group, whereas these responses in smokers were greater than in non-smokers in desflurane group. In conclusion we decided that; in patients, who are smokers or have an increrased bronchial hyperactivity, it would be a better choice to use sevoflurane than desflurane.