Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology
https://bjan-sba.org/article/doi/10.1016/j.bjane.2014.10.005
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology
Scientific Article

A comparative study between propofol and etomidate in patients under general anesthesia

Estudo comparativo entre propofol e etomidato em pacientes sob anestesia geral

Supriya Aggarwal; Vipin Kumar Goyal; Shashi Kala Chaturvedi; Vijay Mathur; Birbal Baj; Alok Kumar

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjane.2014.10.005 Braz J Anesthesiol, vol.66, n3, p.237-241, 2016
PDF English
PDF Português
Downloads: 0
Views: 679

Abstract

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Induction of anesthesia is a critical part of anesthesia practice. Sudden hypotension, arrhythmias, and cardiovascular collapse are threatening complications following injection of induction agent in hemodynamically unstable patients. It is desirable to use a safe agent with fewer adverse effects for this purpose. Present prospective randomized study is designed to compare propofol and etomidate for their effect on hemodynamics and various adverse effects on patients in general anesthesia. METHODS: Hundred ASA I and II patients of age group 18-60 years scheduled for elective surgical procedure under general anesthesia were randomly divided into two groups of 50 each receiving propofol (2 mg/kg) and etomidate (0.3 mg/kg) as an induction agent. Vital parameters at induction, laryngoscopy and thereafter recorded for comparison. Adverse effect viz. pain on injection, apnea and myoclonus were carefully watched. RESULTS: Demographic variables were comparable in both the groups. Patients in etomidate group showed little change in mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) compared to propofol (p > 0.05) from baseline value. Pain on injection was more in propofol group while myoclonus activity was higher in etomidate group. CONCLUSIONS: This study concludes that etomidate is a better agent for induction than propofol in view of hemodynamic stability and less pain on injection.

Keywords

Propofol, Induction of anesthesia, Myoclonus, Hemodynamic stability, Mean arterial pressure

Resumo

RESUMO JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: A indução é uma parte crítica da prática de anestesia. Hipotensão súbita, arritmias e colapso cardiovascular são complicações ameaçadoras após a injeção de agente de indução em pacientes hemodinamicamente instáveis. É aconselhável o uso de um agente seguro com menos efeitos adversos para esse propósito. O presente estudo prospectivo, randômico, teve como objetivo comparar propofol e etomidato quanto a seus efeitos sobre a hemodinâmica e aos vários efeitos adversos em pacientes sob anestesia geral. MÉTODOS: Cem pacientes ASA I e II, entre 18-60 anos, programados para procedimento cirúrgico eletivo sob anestesia geral, foram divididos aleatoriamente em dois grupos de 50 cada para receber propofol (2 mg/kg) e etomidato (0,3 mg/kg) como um agente de indução. Os parâmetros vitais na indução, laringoscopia e posteriormente foram registrados para comparação. Efeitos adversos como dor à injeção, apneia e mioclonia foram cuidadosamente monitorados. RESULTADOS: As variáveis demográficas foram comparáveis em ambos os grupos. Os pacientes do grupo etomidato apresentaram pouca alteração da pressão arterial média (PAM) e da frequência cardíaca (FC) em comparação com o grupo propofol (p < 0,05) a partir do valor basal. Houve mais dor à injeção no grupo propofol, enquanto houve mais atividade mioclônica no grupo etomidato. CONCLUSÕES: Este estudo conclui que etomidato é um agente melhor para a indução do que o propofol em relação à estabilidade hemodinâmica e menos dor à injeção.

Palavras-chave

Propofol, Indução da anestesia, Mioclonia, Estabilidade hemodinâmica, Pressão arterial média

References

Shinn HK, Lee MH, Moon SY. Post-operative nausea and vomiting after gynecologic laparoscopic surgery compar- ison between propofol and sevoflurane. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2011;60:36-40.

Grundmann U, Silomon M, Bach F. Recovery profile and side effects of remifentanil-based anaesthesia with desflurane or propofol for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2001;45:320-6.

Maruyama K, Nishikawa Y, Nakagawa H. Can intravenous atropine prevent bradycardia and hypotension during induction of total intravenous anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil. J Anesth. 2010;24:293-6.

Frazee BW, Park RS, Lowery D. Propofol for deep proce- dural sedation in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2005;23:190-5.

Ozgul U, Begec Z, Erdogan MA. Effect of alkalinisa- tion of lignocaine for propofol injection pain a prospective, randomised, double-blind study. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2013;4:501-4.

Sarkar M, Laussen PC, Zurakowski D. Hemodynamic responses to etomidate on induction of anesthesia in pediatric patients. Anesth Analg. 2005;101:645-50.

Morel J, Salard M, Castelain C. Haemodynamic con- sequences of etomidate administration in elective cardiac surgery a randomized double-blinded study. Br J Anaesth. 2011;107:503-9.

Paris A, Philipp M, Tonner PH. Activation of alpha 2B-adrenoceptors mediates the cardiovascular effects of eto- midate. Anesthesiology. 2003;99:889-95.

Kim TK, Park IS. Comparative study of brain protection effect between thiopental and etomidate using bispectral index dur- ing temporary arterial occlusion. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2011;50:497-502.

Nyman Y, Von Hofsten K, Palm C. Etomidate-Lipuro is associated with considerably less injection pain in children compared with propofol with added lidocaine. Br J Anaesth. 2006;97:536-9.

Nyman Y, von Hofsten K, Ritzmo C. Effect of a small prim- ing dose on myoclonic movements after intravenous anaesthesia induction with Etomidate-Lipuro in children. Br J Anaesth. 2011;107:225-8.

Hoka S, Yamaura K, Takenaka T. Propofol-induced increase in vascular capacitance is due to inhibition of sympathetic vaso- constrictive activity. Anesthesiology. 1998;89:1495-500.

Muzi M, Berens RA, Kampine JP. Venodilation contributes to propofol-mediated hypotension in humans. Anesth Analg. 1992;74:877-83.

Aono H, Hirakawa M, Unruh GK. Anesthetic induction agents, sympathetic nerve activity and baroreflex sensitivity a study in rabbits comparing thiopental, propofol and etomidate. Acta Med Okayama. 2001;55:197-203.

Hughes RL, MacKenzie JE. An investigation of the centrally and peripherally mediated cardiovascular effects of etomidate in the rabbit. Br J Anaesth. 1978;50:101-8.

Mayer M, Doenicke A, Nebauer AE. Propofol and Etomidate-Lipuro for induction of general anesthesia Hemo- dynamics, vascular compatibility, subjective findings and postoperative nausea. Anaesthesist. 1996;45:1082-4.

Wu J, Yao S, Wu Z. A comparison of anesthetic reg- imens using etomidate and propofol in patients undergoing first-trimester abortions double-blind, randomized clinical trial of safety and efficacy. Contraception. 2013;87:55-62.

Ray DC, Hay AW, McKeown DW. Induction drug and outcome of patients admitted to the intensive care unit after emergency laparotomy. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27:481-5.

Ray DC, McKeown DW. Effect of induction agent on vasopressor and steroid use, and outcome in patients with septic shock. Crit Care. 2007;11:56.

Zausig YA, Busse H, Lunz D. Cardiac effects of induction agents in the septic rat heart. Crit Care. 2009;13:144.

Ray DC, McKeown DW. Etomidate for critically ill patients Pro: yes we can use it. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2012;29:506-10.

Saricaoglu F, Uzun S, Arun O. A clinical comparison of Etomidate-Lipuro, propofol and admixture at induction. Saudi J Anaesth. 2011;5:62-6.

Boysen K, Sanchez R, Krintel JJ. Induction and recov- ery characteristics of propofol, thiopental and etomidate. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1989;33:689-92.

Miner JR, Danahy M, Moch A. Randomized clinical trial of etomidate versus propofol for procedural sedation in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49:15-22.

5dcd75c60e88255023bf58f1 rba Articles
Links & Downloads
2352-2291 (Electronic) 0104-0014 (Printed)
Braz J Anesthesiol ©2024 All rights reserved.

Braz J Anesthesiol

Share this page
Page Sections