The History of Intravenous Anaesthesia: The Barbiturates. Part 3
C. Ball,R. Westhorpe
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0310057X0102900401
2001-08-01
Anaesthesia and Intensive Care
Abstract:Thiopentone was first reported by Lundy in the U.S.A. in 1936 and used in the U.K. by Jarman and Abel that same year. Thiopentone gained rapid acceptance, largely because of the absence of muscle movements seen with hexobarbitone. However, it was realized that thiopentone was not a perfect induction agent and the search continued for a better. Helmut Weese, the German pharmacologist responsible for hexobarbitone, introduced another thiobarbiturate in 1954. It was known as Baytenal, and later, buthalitone. It reportedly had a faster recovery time than hexobarbitone but was eventually abandoned, once again because of a high incidence of muscle movements. It was used briefly in England where it was marketed as Transithal and Ulbreval. Other thiobarbiturates followed. Thiobutobarbitone was first introduced by Horatz and Sturtzbecher in 1952 and was widely used on the continent. It was noted to be slightly less potent than thiopentone but otherwise very similar. Popular in Germany was a similar compound, ethylsecbutyl-thiobarbiturate, marketed as Inaktin. Zima, von Werder and Hotovy introduced a methyl thioethyl group at the five position of the barbiturate chain in an attempt to accelerate breakdown and prevent liver damage due to toxic doses. This research led to the development of methitural which was very short-acting. It was used briefly in the U.S.A. as Nercval, and in Germany as Thiogenal, but it was not as effective as other agents and was soon abandoned. The methyl group in hexobarbitone was responsible for the rapid onset of action, and further research into the methylated barbiturates continued for this reason. A few compounds were marketed around the world with brief popularity, such as Narconumal in France and Narcodorm in Scandinavia. Eventually, research by the Lilly Research Laboratories led to the development of Lilly 22,451—a drug more potent that thiopentone with more rapid recovery but with unfortunate convulsive properties. Further modification of this drug led to the development of Lilly 25,398 or methohexitone in 1956. Subsequent methohexitone use in the U.S.A. confirmed that it did have some benefits over thiopentone and its use was recommended for short operations. Dundee and Moore conducted a four year trial of the drug in the U.K., comparing it to thiopentone, with and without opiate premedication. They reported their findings in 1961 and their discussion provides a very comprehensive analysis of the clinical use of methohexitone. They reported that the excitatory side-effects were often of a minor nature, but more marked that those associated with hexobarbitone. They were impressed by the rapid and complete recovery it produced, even when given with opiate premedication. “A large number of patients operated on in the early morning were walking around the ward before lunch and had their full midday meal when methohexital was used, whereas this was never seen in those in whom thiopentone was used... This rapid return of consciousness and absence of a ‘hangover’ is in full agreement with the results of other workers, some of whom have suggested that the drug would be very suitable for outpatient anaesthesia.” They noted a high incidence of coughing and hiccoughing but did not consider it a major problem. By the 1950s, barbiturates had found their way into dental anaesthesia. Dr P. Sykes relates that at Guy’s Hospital they were taught “the technique which has been called ‘elegant strangulation’, and I could never understand why. When 100% nitrous oxide, leather straps, the restraining influence of members of the Guy’s rugby team and ethyl chloride sprayed on the mouth pack had all failed to subdue a 20 stone brewer’s drayman from the Borough, the anaesthetic registrar would be called on to give a quick shot of thiopentone—and peace reigned immediately. Why should not peace reign all the time, I wondered.” In 1957, the Society for the Advancement of Anaesthesia in Dentistry (SAAD) was formed in London to set up information and training sessions for dental anaesthetists and dentists. The society was founded by Mr Stanley Drummond-Jackson who had long been an advocate of intravenous anaesthesia for dentistry. The original technique recommended by SAAD involved a single shot of thiopentone or hexobarbitone with the dose adjusted to suit the operation. Incremental doses were not recommended and hexobarbitone was generally preferred because of the prolonged postoperative euphoria. In 1960 the SAAD newsletter reported the release of methohexitone, adding that “it is probable that this drug will herald a greater advance in dental induction anaesthesia on the ambulant patient than in any other branch of anaesthesia.” Once they recognized that methohexitone could safely be given incrementally, the intermittent dosing regimen was established as the Society’s principal technique. Although there were obviously potential hazards to this type of dental chair anaesthesia, there do not appear to have been many problems, and Sykes states “Whatever its theoretical dangers, incremental methohexitone in dentistry proved in practice to have an unmatched safety record”. Thus methohexitone became established as a suitable agent for dental anaesthesia and other short procedures, especially outpatient electroconvulsive therapy. Despite its advantages for these procedures, it never achieved the same level of popularity as thiopentone. As Dundee and McIlroy wrote 20 years ago, “Thiopentone ... will be hard to replace by non-barbiturate agents. Methohexitone still holds a place for short procedures but this agent may be replaced by shorter-acting non-barbiturate.” CHRISTINE BALL, ROD WESTHORPE Geoffrey Kaye Museum of Anaesthetic History