Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8842666

Propofol does not affect platelet aggregation.

H Türkan·A H Süer·C Beyan·A Yalçin
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Abnormalities of platelet haemostasis pose increased risk to patients undergoing anaesthesia and surgery. We have investigated the effect of propofol on platelet aggregation in 12 patients undergoing upper and lower abdominal surgery. Propofol 2.5 mg kg-1 was administered via a cannula in the antecubital vein. Venous blood samples were obtained before induction and 10 min after administration of propofol. Platelet aggregation measurements were made for adenosine diphosphate (ADP), collagen and adrenaline. The results show that propofol does not affect platelet aggregation in the concentrations used.

Explore related subjects

AbdomenAdenosine DiphosphateAdultAnesthesia, IntravenousAnesthetics, IntravenousBlood PlateletsCollagenDose-Response Relationship, DrugEpinephrineHemostasisHumansPlatelet AggregationPropofolJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

H Türkan, A H Süer, C Beyan, A Yalçin. 1996. Propofol does not affect platelet aggregation.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8842666/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2001

Radiotherapy for stage II testicular seminoma.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcome of patients with Stage II seminoma treated with prophylactic mediastinal irradiation, without any supradiaphragmatic irradiation, and with prophylactic left supraclavicular irradiation (PLSCI). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1960 and 1999, 73 men with Stage II seminoma received postorchiectomy radiotherapy. Before 1984, 36 received prophylactic mediastinal irradiation (Series I); between 1984 and 1992, 17 received no supradiaphragmatic irradiation (Series II); and after 1992, 20 received PLSCI (Series III). The outcomes in these series were compared. RESULTS: The abdominal tumor sizes were as follows: Series I, 2 and 5 and 2 and 5 and 2 and 5 and <or=10 cm, n = 5 (p = 0.75). The median duration of follow-up was 14.4, 9.3, and 4.5 years for Series I, II, and III, respectively. The 6-year freedom from relapse was 94%, 71%, and 95% for Series I, II, and III, respectively. The differences between Series I and II (p = 0.014) and between II and III (p = 0.042) were significant. Three patients in Series II had a relapse in their left supraclavicular fossa-a failure pattern abrogated by PLSCI. CONCLUSIONS: PLSCI significantly diminishes the likelihood of relapse for Stage IIA, IIB, and IIC seminoma (mass <or=10 cm).

Abdomen↗
PubMed2001

[Abdominal fat assessment by magnetic resonance: comparison with biometric profiles and cardiovascular risk markers].

BACKGROUND: Obesity is associated with numerous metabolic complications and cardiovascular disease. Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging provides fair resolution of fat distribution, its quantification by semiautomatic methods being feasible. Our purpose was to analyze abdominal fat deposition by MR imaging and quantify its relative distribution in 50 obese patients. RESULTS were then related to anthropometric measures and cardiovascular risk markers. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Six axial T1-weighted abdominal images were obtained from each patient and transferred to a PC. A software (ASYMED 3.0; Valencia) was used to analyze the images and quantify relative fat deposition. Comparison of MR results with several cardiovascular risk markers was performed using unpaired data Student t-test. Significance level was defined as a P < 0.05. RESULTS: 12% of patients showed predominant intra-abdominal fat deposition.Significant differences were found with regard to age, waist-hip ratio and average serum levels of total cholesterol, LDL, VLDL,triglycerides and apoprotein B between intra-abdominal deposition versus subcutaneous fat deposition. CONCLUSION: MR imaging allows estimation of abdominal fat deposition and its relative distribution. There is a significant relationship between a predominant intra-abdominal fat deposition and an atherogeniclipid profile.

Abdomen↗