Comparison of cardiovascular response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation after induction of anesthesia by Propofol and Etomidate

Mehrdad Masoudifar, Elham Beheshtian, Mehrdad Masoudifar, Elham Beheshtian

Abstract

Background: Etomidate and Propofol are common anesthetic agents. Previous studies say that Etomidate can be used in patients with limited hemodynamic reserve and Propofol can lead to more hemodynamic instabilities. This study was performed to explore the cardiovascular response during the induction of anesthesia with Etomidate or for comparison, Propofol in elective orthopedic surgeries.

Materials and methods: This study was a double-blinded randomized clinical trial study including patients 18-45 years of age that were admitted for elective orthopedic surgeries in 2012. 25consenting, ASA I (American Society of Anaesthesiologists), patients were evaluated randomly in two groups, and their cardiovascular responses including: systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and O2 saturation (O2 sat) were measured before the laryngoscopy, during the anesthesia induction with Etomidate (0.3 mg/kg) in group A and propfol (2-2.5 mg/kg) in group B and at 1, 3, 5,10 min after the induction.

Results: There were no statistical differences between both groups regarding gender, age, body mass index, and laryngoscopic grade of patients (P > 0.05). Changes of SBP in the group B was significantly higher (P = 0.019). Furthermore, changes of the DBP was significantly higher in the group B (P = 0.001). The changes of MAP was higher in group B (P = 0.008). Hypotension happened in 26.1% of group B and 8% of group A (P = 0.09). There were no significant differences among groups A and B in terms of HR (P = 0.47) and O2 sat (P = 0.21), tachycardia (P = 0.6), bradycardia (P = 0.66) and hypertension (P = 0.95).

Conclusion: Since, patients receiving Etomidate have more stable hemodynamic condition, if there would be no contraindications, it could be preferred over Propofol for general anesthesia.

Keywords: Cardiovascular response; etomidate; hemodynamic changes; laryngoscopy; propofol.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Consort diagram of studied population

References

    1. Mangano DT. Perioperative cardiac morbidity. Anesthesiology. 1990;72:153–84.
    1. Stone JG, Foëx P, Sear JW, Johnson LL, Khambatta HJ, Triner L. Risk of myocardial ischaemia during anaesthesia in treated and untreated hypertensive patients. Br J Anaesth. 1988;61:675–9.
    1. Wallner T, Preis C, Mayer N. Cardiac medication in the perioperative period. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Suppl. 1997;111:22–8.
    1. Kondo U, Kim SO, Murray PA. Propofol selectively attenuates endothelium-dependent pulmonary vasodilation in chronically instrumented dogs. Anesthesiology. 2000;93:437–46.
    1. Riznyk L, Fijałkowska M, Przesmycki K. Effects of thiopental and propofol on heart rate variability during fentanyl-based induction of general anesthesia. Pharmacol Rep. 2005;57:128–34.
    1. 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.
    1. 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. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1997;14:310–5.
    1. Hug CC, Jr, McLeskey CH, Nahrwold ML, Roizen MF, Stanley TH, Thisted RA, et al. Hemodynamic effects of propofol: Data from over 25,000 patients. Anesth Analg. 1993;77:S21–9.
    1. 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. pp. 1246–61.
    1. Reves JG, Glass P, Lubarsky DA, McEvoy MD, Martinez-Ruiz R. Intravenous anesthesia. In: Miller RD, editor. Anesthesia. 7th ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2010. pp. 719–58.
    1. Schmidt C, Roosens C, Struys M, Deryck YL, Van Nooten G, Colardyn F, et al. Contractility in humans after coronary artery surgery. Anesthesiology. 1999;91:58–70.
    1. Ed's Morgan GE, Mikhail MS, Murray MJ. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2006. Clinical Anesthesiology; pp. 200–2.
    1. Cuthbertson BH, Sprung CL, Annane D, Chevret S, Garfield M, Goodman S, et al. The effects of etomidate on adrenal responsiveness and mortality in patients with septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35:1868–76.
    1. Sarkar M, Laussen PC, Zurakowski D, Shukla A, Kussman B, Odegard KC. Hemodynamic responses to etomidate on induction of anesthesia in pediatric patients. Anesth Analg. 2005;101:645–50. table of contents.
    1. Eames WO, Rooke GA, Wu RS, Bishop MJ. Comparison of the effects of etomidate, propofol, and thiopental on respiratory resistance after tracheal intubation. Anesthesiology. 1996;84:1307–11.
    1. Zed PJ, Mabasa VH, Slavik RS, Abu-Laban RB. Etomidate for rapid sequence intubation in the emergency department: Is adrenal suppression a concern? CJEM. 2006;8:347–50.
    1. Lipiner-Friedman D, Sprung CL, Laterre PF, Weiss Y, Goodman SV, Vogeser M, et al. Adrenal function in sepsis: The retrospective Corticus cohort study. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:1012–8.
    1. Lundy JB, Slane ML, Frizzi JD. Acute adrenal insufficiency after a single dose of etomidate. J Intensive Care Med. 2007;22:111–7.
    1. 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 J Anesthesiol. 2011;60:161–6.
    1. 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.
    1. Ouédraogo N, Marthan R, Roux E. The effects of propofol and etomidate on airway contractility in chronically hypoxic rats. Anesth Analg. 2003;96:1035–41. table of contents.
    1. Jellish WS, Riche H, Salord F, Ravussin P, Tempelhoff R. Etomidate and thiopental-based anesthetic induction: Comparisons between different titrated levels of electrophysiologic cortical depression and response to laryngoscopy. J Clin Anesth. 1997;9:36–41.
    1. Harris CE, Murray AM, Anderson JM, Grounds RM, Morgan M. Effects of thiopentone, etomidate and propofol on the haemodynamic response to tracheal intubation. Anaesthesia. 1988;43:32–6.
    1. 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.
    1. Boisson-Bertrand D, Taron F, Laxenaire MC. Etomidate vs. propofol to carry out suspension laryngoscopies. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1991;8:141–4.
    1. Kalogridaki M, Souvatzis X, Mavrakis HE, Kanoupakis EM, Panteli A, Kasotaki S, et al. Anaesthesia for cardioversion: A prospective randomised comparison of propofol and etomidate combined with fentanyl. Hellenic J Cardiol. 2011;52:483–8.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe