A Clinical Comparison of Fluothane ~nd

/ O" rather an attempt to compare the two a~ents by carefully anal)~smg the results of the routine use first of Fluothane then of the az~?otrope. There has been some eontrovers over the merit of adding ethelr to Fluothane. Hudon, Jaeques__and Boivin 1 suggested that by adding ether to prochaee respiratory and myocardial stimulation inany of the disadvantages of Ft~othane could be remedied. Their clinical experi enee supported this claim I. Wyant, Merriman, Harland, Donaldson, and Wyant Merriman, Kilduff and ~fhomas '',a com. pared Fluothane with Fluothane-ether in human volunteers, pobkin, Harland and Fedoruk 4 compared their effects iI dogs and both demonstrated that e~er protected the subject from the eardio-;espir~tory depression of Fluothane. On the other hand, Johnstone, Evans and the azeotrope for Fluothane consistentl condition, and concluded that ether, ra which would elevate blood pressure presumably because the sympatho-ad: Fluothane. Unfortunately, Johnstone e~ if ether would produce the same myoc for induction before the sympatho-adr~ Murphy 7 found that the substitution of y caused a deterioration of the patients :her than stimulating an adrenal response caused further myoeafdial depression :enal system was already depressed by al. did not reverse the sequence to see rdial depression if given with Fluothane hal system was already depressed. However, hp did demonstrate that Fluothane, like sympathetic blockade, will biock the organism s ability to protect itself from the depressing effect of ether if the Fhiothane is given in adequate ainounts before ether is giyen. It seems apparent that the way in which these agents are use~l will determine to a great degree whether one has any advantage over the other. This study was performed in order to determine wheti?er in our hands, with ot~r patients, techniques, and personnel, one agent cati~s(,d more hypotension thar~ the other.