Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Comparison Between Propofol and Etomidate in General Anaesthesia as Induction Agents at a Tertiary Care Centre


Affiliations
1 Professor and Head, Department of Anaesthesia, Dr. Vasantrao Pawar Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Nashik – 422003, Maharashtra, India
2 Former PG Resident, Department of Anaesthesia, Dr. Vasantrao Pawar Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Nashik – 422003, Maharashtra, India
3 Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, Dr. Vasantrao Pawar Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Nashik – 422003, Maharashtra, India
 

Aims: To compare hemodynamic changes occurring due to Propofol and Etomidate during general anesthesia as induction agents at a Tertiary Care Centre. Materials and Methods: 68 Adult ASA1 and ASA 2 Patients undergoing elective surgeries under gender anaesthesia in the department of Anaesthesia, Medical college and tertiary health care Centre after considering and satisfying the inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected and divided in two equal groups. They were given Propofol (2mg/kg) and Etomidate (0.3mg/kg) and hemodynamics were compared. Results: Etomidate was having more stable hemodynamic conditions as compared to Propofol induced anaesthesia. There was significant reduction in heart rate and blood pressure leading to hypotension in propofol group while etomidate group had stable hemodynamics. Conclusion: This study concludes that etomidate is a better agent for induction than propofol in view of hemodynamic stability.

Keywords

Induction Agents, Hemodynamic Changes, Propofol, Etomidate
Font Size

User
Notifications

  • Stone JG, Foex P, Sear JW, Johnson LL, Khambatta HJ, Triner L. Risk of myocardial ischaemia during anaesthesia in treated and untreated hypertensive patients.
  • British Journal of Anaesthesia. 1988; 61:675–9. https://doi.
  • org/10.1093/bja/61.6.675. PMid:3207540
  • Riznyk L, Fijalkowska M, Przesmycki K. Effects of thiopental and propofol on heart rate variability during fentanyl-based induction of general anesthesia. Pharmacological Reports..2005; 57:128–34.
  • Basu S, Mutschler DK, Larsson AO, Kiiski R, Nordgren A, Eriksson MB. Propofol (Diprivan-EDTA) counteracts oxidative injury and deterioration of the arterial oxygen tension during experimental septic shock. Resuscitation. 2001; 50:341–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9572(01)00351-3
  • Kelicen P, Ismailoglu UB, Erdemli O, Sahin-Erdemli I. The effect of propofol and thiopentone on impairment by reactive oxygen species of endothelium-dependent relaxation in rat aortic rings. European Journal of Anaesthesiology.
  • ; 14:310–5. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2346.1997.
  • x. PMid:9202920
  • Hiller SC, Mazurek MS. Monitored anesthesia care. In: Barash PG, Cullen BF, Stoelting RK, editors. Clinical Anesthesia. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2006. p. 1246–61.
  • Reves JG, Glass P, Lubarsky DA, McEvoy MD, MartinezRuiz R. Intravenous anesthesia. In: Miller RD, editor.
  • Anesthesia. 7th ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2010.
  • p. 719–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-06959-8.
  • -1
  • Morel J, Salard M, Castelain C, et al. Haemodynamic con- sequences of etomidate administration in elective cardiac surgery: a randomized double-blinded study. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2011; 107:503–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aer169. PMid:21685487
  • Sarkar M, Laussen PC, Zurakowski D, Shukla A, Kussman B, Odegard KC. Hemodynamic responses to etomidate on induction of anesthesia in pediatric patients. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2005; 101:645–50. https://doi.org/10.1213/01. ane.0000166764.99863.b4. PMid:16115968
  • Eames WO, Rooke GA, Wu RS, Bishop MJ. Comparison of the effects of etomidate, propofol, and thiopental on respiratory resistance after tracheal intubation. Anesthesiology.
  • ; 84:1307–11. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542199606000-00005. PMid:8669670
  • Zed PJ, Mabasa VH, Slavik RS, Abu-Laban RB. Etomidate for rapid sequence intubation in the emergency department: Is adrenal suppression a concern? Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2006; 8:347–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1481803500014044. PMid:17338847
  • Lipiner-Friedman D, Sprung CL, Laterre PF, Weiss Y, Goodman SV, Vogeser M, et al. Adrenal function in sepsis: The retrospective Corticus cohort study. Critical Care Medicine. 2007; 35:1012–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01. CCM.0000259465.92018.6E. PMid:17334243
  • Lundy JB, Slane ML, Frizzi JD. Acute adrenal insufficiency after a single dose of etomidate. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine. 2007; 22:111–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885066606298140. PMid:17456730
  • Bae JY, Choi do Y, Woo CH, Kwak IS, Mun SH, Kim KM.
  • The BIS and hemodynamic changes in major burn patients according to a slow infusion of propofol for induction.
  • Korean Journal of Anesthesiology. 2011; 60:161–6. https:// doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2011.60.3.161. PMid:21490816. PMCid: PMC3071478
  • Ebert TJ, Muzi M, Berens R, Goff D, Kampine JP.
  • Sympathetic responses to induction of anesthesia in humans with propofol or etomidate. Anesthesiology. 1992; 76:725–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-19920500000010. PMid:1575340
  • Ouedraogo N, Marthan R, Roux E. The effects of propofol and etomidate on airway contractility in chronically hypoxic rats. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2003; 96:1035–41.
  • https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ANE.0000053236.52491.69.
  • PMid:12651655
  • Jellish WS, Riche H, Salord F, Ravussin P, Tempelhoff R. Etomidate thiopental based ansthetic induction: Comparisons between different titrated levels of electrophysiologic cortical depression and response to laryngoscopy. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. 1997; 9:36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0952-8180(96)00211-5
  • Brohon E, Hans P, Schoofs R, Merciny F. Comparison of 4 anesthesia induction protocols on hemodynamic changes in tracheal intubation. Agressologie. 1993; 34:83–4.

Abstract Views: 88

PDF Views: 29




  • Comparison Between Propofol and Etomidate in General Anaesthesia as Induction Agents at a Tertiary Care Centre

Abstract Views: 88  |  PDF Views: 29

Authors

Alka Rajesh Koshire
Professor and Head, Department of Anaesthesia, Dr. Vasantrao Pawar Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Nashik – 422003, Maharashtra, India
Amala Anirudha Godse
Former PG Resident, Department of Anaesthesia, Dr. Vasantrao Pawar Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Nashik – 422003, Maharashtra, India
Sarita Phulkar
Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, Dr. Vasantrao Pawar Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Nashik – 422003, Maharashtra, India
Hemant Pawar
Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, Dr. Vasantrao Pawar Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Nashik – 422003, Maharashtra, India

Abstract


Aims: To compare hemodynamic changes occurring due to Propofol and Etomidate during general anesthesia as induction agents at a Tertiary Care Centre. Materials and Methods: 68 Adult ASA1 and ASA 2 Patients undergoing elective surgeries under gender anaesthesia in the department of Anaesthesia, Medical college and tertiary health care Centre after considering and satisfying the inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected and divided in two equal groups. They were given Propofol (2mg/kg) and Etomidate (0.3mg/kg) and hemodynamics were compared. Results: Etomidate was having more stable hemodynamic conditions as compared to Propofol induced anaesthesia. There was significant reduction in heart rate and blood pressure leading to hypotension in propofol group while etomidate group had stable hemodynamics. Conclusion: This study concludes that etomidate is a better agent for induction than propofol in view of hemodynamic stability.

Keywords


Induction Agents, Hemodynamic Changes, Propofol, Etomidate

References