A Prospective Randomized Double-blind Comparative Study of Hemodynamic Effects of Etomidate and Propofol in Controlled Hypertensive Patients during Induction of General Anesthesia
Shubha D Bhat, Naina P Dalvi, Maithili D Thakur
Citation Information :
Bhat SD, Dalvi NP, Thakur MD. A Prospective Randomized Double-blind Comparative Study of Hemodynamic Effects of Etomidate and Propofol in Controlled Hypertensive Patients during Induction of General Anesthesia. Res Inno in Anesth 2020; 5 (2):33-38.
Aim: To study and compare the hemodynamic effects of etomidate and propofol when used in controlled hypertensive patients as an induction agent. Materials and methods: It is a prospective randomized double-blind comparative study. After Institutional Ethics Committee approval, 60 patients with controlled hypertension undergoing surgery under general anesthesia and willing to participate in the study were included, i.e., the patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included. Results: The hemodynamic parameters like pulse rate, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were well maintained when etomidate was used as an induction agent when compared with propofol. There were no statistically significant side effects like pain on injection, nausea–vomiting, or myoclonus in either of the groups. Conclusion: IV etomidate 0.3 mg/kg provides better control of heart rate (HR), SBP, DBP, and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) during induction, intubation, and after that throughout the procedure when compared with IV propofol 2 mg/kg in controlled hypertensive patients undergoing general anesthesia. Clinical significance: Considering the common use of propofol and etomidate as induction agents and the importance of a patient's hemodynamic stability, it is of utmost importance to choose an induction agent carefully in hypertensive patients to prevent more damage to their cardiovascular system.
Meena K, Meena R, Nayak SS, et al. A comparative study of effect of propofol, etomidate and propofol plus etomidate induction on hemodynamic response to endotracheal intubation: a RCT. J Anesth Clin Res 2016;7(5):1000622. DOI: 10.4172/2155-6148.1000622.
Lunia A, Khilji MY, Rehman H, et al. A randomised controlled trial to compare etomidate and propofol for induction of general anesthesia in adults. Indian J Basic Appl Med Res 2016;6(1):769–777.
Shah S, Chowdhury I, Bhargava A, et al. Comparison of hemodynamic effects of intravenous etomidate versus propofol during induction and intubation using entropy guided hypnosis levels. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2015;31(2):180–185. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9185.155145.
Kaushal RP, Vatal A, Pathak R. Effect of etomidate and propofol induction on hemodynamic and endocrine response in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting/mitral valve and aortic valve replacement surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Card Anaesth 2015;18(2):172–178. DOI: 10.4103/0971-9784.154470.
Kumar Y. Comparison of propofol and etomidate in patients under general anaesthesia. Int J Contempo Med Res 2016;3(12):3488–3490.
Kumar A, Shekhawat KK, Sharma R, et al. A comparison of propofol and etomidate as anaesthetic agents for elective non-cardiac surgery. Int J Res Med Sci 2018;6(10):3454–3460. DOI: 10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20184062.
Das M, Pradhan BK, Samantray RC. Comparative study on haemodynamic responses during intubation using etomidate, propofol and thiopentone in laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgeries. Int J Med Health Sci 2015;5(4):150–158.
Sharma A, Kulkarni K, Namazi IJ, et al. Comparative study of etomidate-lipuro and propofol for induction in general anaesthesia. Indian J Basic Appl Med Res 2016;5(2):816–823.
Patel H, Patel B, Shah D, et al. A comparative study of effect of propofol, etomidate and propofol plus etomidate induction on hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. Int J Sci Res (IJSR) 2018;7(2):320–324.
Malinowska-Zaprzalka M, Wojewodzka M, Dryl D, et al. Hemodynamic effect of propofol in enalapril treated hypertensive patients during induction of general anesthesia. Pharmacolog Rep 2005;57:675–678.
Shah J, Patel I, Guha A. Comparative study of propofol vs etomidate as an induction agent to evaluate hemodynamic changes during induction of anesthesia in controlled hypertensive patients. Anaesth Pain Intensive Care 2018;22(3):361–367.
Muriel C, Santos J, Espinel C. Comparative study of propofol with thiopental and etomidate in anesthetic induction. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 1991;38(5):301–304.
Kaur S, Kataria AP, Kaur G, et al. Comparison of induction characteristics of propofol-lipuro and etomidate-lipuro in cardiac patients in noncardiac surgery. Int J Sci Stud 2014;2(6):66–72.
Choudhury M, Kapoor P, Kiran U, et al. A randomized trial of anaesthetic induction agents in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction. Ann Card Anaesth 2010;13(3):217–223. DOI: 10.4103/0971-9784.69057.
Shivanna S, Priye S, Jagannath S, et al. A comparative study of haemodynamic effects of propofol and etomidate as an induction agent in coronary artery surgery. J Evolut Med Dent Sci 2015;4(4):598–607. DOI: 10.14260/jemds/2015/88.
Kamath MR, Kamath S, Patla KP. Propofol or etomidate: does it genuinely matter for induction in cardiac surgical procedures? Indian J Clin Anaesthe 2016;3(4):551–555.
Larsen JR, Torp P, Norrild K, et al. Propofol reduces tissue-Doppler markers of left ventricle function: A transthoracic echocardiographic study. Br J Anaesth 2007;98:183–188