Background & Objective : Regional anesthesia is a method of choice in cesarean section. But in emergency cesarean sections general anesthesia is usually preferred. On the other hand, intravenous sedative drugs used in general anesthesia induction rapidly crosses the placenta and result in fetal depression. Because of higher prevalence of general anesthesia in Iran it is reasonable to conduct more researches in this field. This study set out to compare the effects of Propofol and Thiopental-Na as induction agents on the neonatal Apgar score and maternal hemodynamic status.

  Methods: In this double blind clinical trial 60 pregnant women with ASA class I & II were studied. In a random way 30 patients received 2mg/kg Propofol and the rest of them were given 4mg/kg of Thiopental-Na. All these subjects had full term and normal fetus. Pre and post-induction status of the patients was monitored noninvasively after tracheal intubations and during 12 minutes after that. Also time intervals between induction and birth (cord clipping) and between uterus incision and birth were measured. Apgar score of neonates was evaluated through clinical examination in 1^st, 5^th, 10^th and 15^th minutes after birth. The data were analyzed in SPSS software using descriptive and analytical statistics such as T-test, chi-square and ANOVA.

 Results: Apgar score in different times (1.5,10&15 minute) had no significant difference between two groups. (In the 1^st minute Propofol was 7.1 ± 2.2 and Thiopental was 74 ± 1.8, in the 5^th minute Propofol was 9.2 ± 0.7 and Thiopental was 9.1 ± 0.9) Maximum variation of heart rate and blood pressure in two groups were not significantly different. The time intervals between induction and birth (less than 8 minutes) on the one hand and uterus incision and birth(less than 130 seconds) on the other were similar in two groups.

  Conclusions : Thiopental-Na and Propofol can be used with similar results for induction of general anesthesia in cesarean section.

  Background and Objectives: Laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation could lead to hemodynamic responses in the from of hypertension and tachycardia as well as arrhythmia and myocardial ischemia. This alterations can be life-threatening particularly in elderly people. This clinical trial compared the effects of two rapid-onset narcotics, Alfentanil and Remifentanil, on the hemodynamic responses to the induction and tracheal intubation in elderly patients.

  Methods: This double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 40 subjects aged 65 and above. They were candidate of cataract surgery under general anesthesia. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups of 20. The first group, was gaiven Alfentanil 10 m g/kg and for second group Remifentanil 0.5 m g/kg was injected prior to the induction of anesthesia. Both groups were similiar in the method of anesthesia except in narcotics. The first group was infused with Alfentanil 1 m g/kg/min and Remifentanil 0.1 m g/kg/min was used for the second group. Hemodynamic variations including heart rate, systolic, diastolic and mean arterial blood pressure were measured and recorded eight times (before induction, aften injection, after intubation and five times during anesthesia). Data were analyzed with SPSS software using descriptive and analytical statistics such as T-test, chi squre and ANOVA.

  Results: Immediately after injection of narcotic drugs, all hemodynamic variants decreased. Howerver diastolic blood pressure in Remifentantil group significantly more than Alfentanil group (P<0.05). After laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation all hemodynamic variants increased and slowly decreased in less than 10 minutes. Systolic, diastolic and mean arterial blood pressure decreased significantly in remifentanil group than alfentanil group (P<0.05). Although heart rate decreased during few minutes after intubation, there was not significant difference between two groups regarding this decrease (P>0.05). Ephedrin was used to treat severe hypotention in those under Remifentanil (11 patients) more than those under Alfentanil (4 patients) (P<0.05).

  Conclusions: According to the resukts of this study Remifentanil could prevent hemodynamic variation induced by laryngoscopy and treacheal intubation more than Alfentanil. However in some cases Remifentanil leads to hypotension during anesthesia. There is no important difference between two drugs in increasing heat rate after laryngoscopy and intubation.

  Background & Objective: With consideration the daily increased development of outpatient surgeries and high rate of these operations in elderly patients, rapid and safe recovery of patients for coming back to daily life is necessary. In this clinical trial study recovery time and nausea and vomiting after the use of two rapid-onset narcotic, alfentanil and remifentanil in elderly patients has been compared.

  Methods: In this double-blind clinical trial 40 elderly patients (age above 65) candidated to cataract surgery with general anesthesia were studied. The patients were divided randomly into two groups and for first group alfentanil was injected 10 m g/kg and for second group remifentanil 0.5 m g/kg during 30 seconds one minute before induction. Both two groups were under general anesthesia with same method and during the anesthesia first group took infusion of alfentanil 1 m g/kg/min and second group remifentanil 0.1 m g/kg/min. At the end of surgery the time intervals between end of anesthesia drug adminstration and autonomic respiration, eyes opening with stimulation, verbal response and discharge of recovery room, also the incidence of complications related to narcotic drugs especially nausea and vomiting were recorded. The data were analyzed in SPSS software using descriptive and analytical statistics as T-test, chi square and ANOVA.

  Results: The time of autonomic respiration in alfentanil group was 2 minutes and in remifentanil group 3.3 minutes,this time in alfentanil groupe1.3 minutes shorter but the difference was not significant. The time of eyes opening with stimulation, verbal response and discharge of recovery room were not significantly different. During recovery incidence of nausea and vomiting in remifentanil group (30% of patients) was significantly more than alfentanil group (5% of patients) (P<0.05).

  Conclusion: The time of recovery between alfentanil and remifentanil group was not significantly different, but incidence of nausea and vomiting in remifentanil group was higher than alfentanil group significantly.