[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.161.130.145. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
April 1963

Clinical Comparison of Halothane (Fluothane) and Chloroform

Author Affiliations

SEATTLE
Present address: Bristol, Tenn. (Dr. McReynolds); now Consultant Anesthetist, Colchester, England (Dr. Thorogood); Director of Anesthesia Research Laboratories, Providence Hospital, Seattle (Dr. Morris).; Department of Anesthesia, King County Hospital, University of Washington, Seattle.

Arch Surg. 1963;86(4):633-640. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1963.01310100117018
Abstract

In 1956 Raventós reported an investigation of the pharmacologic behavior of a fluorinated hydrocarbon (2 bromo-2 chloro-1, 1, 1-trifluoroethane) which was found to be a potent inhalation anesthetic.1 The first clinical trials reported by Johnstone,2 Bryce-Smith, and O'Brien3 were quickly followed by further favorable reports.4-8 Since then this agent, halothane (Fluothane), has been both enthusiastically received as a clinical anesthetic and subjected to extensive laboratory and clinical investigation.9 Although one of the advantages of halothane is its nonflammability, inhalation anesthetic agents with which it has been commonly compared clinically are ether and cyclopropane, both of which are flammable and explosive, thereby limiting their comparable use under some conditions. Since their physical characteristics are quite different from halothane, dissimilar means of administration are usually used. Pharmacologic effects are also quite diverse. Chloroform, on the other hand, is a most logical agent for clinical comparison with

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×