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
Ram Prasad Kaushal, Ajay Vatal, Radhika Pathak, Ram Prasad Kaushal, Ajay Vatal, Radhika Pathak
Abstract
Introduction: The concerns for induction of anaesthesia in patients undergoing cardiac surgery include hemodynamic stability, attenuation of stress response and maintenance of balance between myocardial oxygen demand and supply. Various Intravenous anaesthetic agents like Thiopentone, Etomidate, Propofol, Midazolam, and Ketamine have been used for anesthetizing patients for cardiac surgeries. However, many authors have expressed concerns regarding induction with thiopentone, midazolam and ketamine. Hence, Propofol and Etomidate are preferred for induction in these patients. However, these two drugs have different characteristics. Etomidate is preferred for patients with poor left ventricular (LV) function as it provides stable cardiovascular profile. But there are concerns about reduction in adrenal suppression and serum cortisol levels. Propofol, on the other hand may cause a reduction in systemic vascular resistance and subsequent hypotension. Thus, this study was conducted to compare induction with these two agents in cardiac surgeries.
Methods: Baseline categorical and continuous variables were compared using Fisher's exact test and student's t test respectively. Hemodynamic variables were compared using student's t test for independent samples. The primary outcome (serum cortisol and blood sugar) of the study was compared using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. The P value less than 0.05 was considered significant.
Results: Etomidate provides more stable hemodynamic parameters as compared to Propofol. Propofol causes vasodilation and may result in drop of systematic BP. Etomidate can therefore be safely used for induction in patients with good LV function for CABG/MVR/AVR on CPB without serious cortisol suppression lasting more than twenty-four hours.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of Interest: None declared.
References
- Boer F, Bovill JG, Ros P, van Ommen H. Effect of thiopentone, etomidate and propofol on systemic vascular resistance during cardiopulmonary bypass. Br J Anaesth. 1991;67:69–72.
- Lischke V, Probst S, Behne M, Kessler P. ST segment changes in the ECG. Anesthesia induction with propofol, etomidate or midazolam in patients with coronary heart disease. Anaesthesist. 1993;42:435–40.
- Patrick MR, Blair IJ, Feneck RO, Sebel PS. A comparison of the haemodynamic effects of propofol (‘Diprivan’) and thiopentone in patients with coronary artery disease. Postgrad Med J. 1985;61(Suppl 3):23–7.
- Singh R, Choudhury M, Kapoor PM, Kiran U. A randomized trial of anesthetic induction agents in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction. Ann Card Anaesth. 2010;13:217–23.
- Stowe DF, Bosnjak ZJ, Kampine JP. Comparison of etomidate, ketamine, midazolam, propofol, and thiopental on function and metabolism of isolated hearts. Anesth Analg. 1992;74:547–58.
- Bendel S, Ruokonen E, Pölönen P, Uusaro A. Propofol causes more hypotension than etomidate in patients with severe aortic stenosis: A double-blind, randomized study comparing propofol and etomidate. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2007;51:284–9.
- Boer F, Ros P, Bovill JG, van Brummelen P, van der Krogt J. Effect of propofol on peripheral vascular resistance during cardiopulmonary bypass. Br J Anaesth. 1990;65:184–9.
- 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.
- Hosten T, Solak M, Kilickan L, Ozdamar D, Toker K. The effects of etomidate and propofol induction on hemodynamic and endocrine responses in patients undergoing CABG surgery. Balkan Med J. 2007;24:114–26.
- Gooding JM, Weng JT, Smith RA, Berninger GT, Kirby RR. Cardiovascular and pulmonary responses following etomidate induction of anesthesia in patients with demonstrated cardiac disease. Anesth Analg. 1979;58:40–1.
- Pandey AK, Makhija N, Chauhan S, Das S, Usha Kiran, Bisoi AK, et al. The effects of etomidate and propofol induction on hemodynamic and endocrine response in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass. World J Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;2:48–53.
- Zurick AM, Sigurdsson H, Koehler LS. Magnitude and time course of perioperative adrenal suppression with single dose etomidate in male adult cardiac surgical patients. Anesthesiology. 1986;65:248.
- Colvin MP, Savege TM, Newland PE, Weaver EJ, Waters AF, Brookes JM, et al. Cardiorespiratory changes following induction of anaesthesia with etomidate in patients with cardiac disease. Br J Anaesth. 1979;51:551–6.
- Criado A, Maseda J, Navarro E, Escarpa A, Avello F. Induction of anaesthesia with etomidate: Haemodynamic study of 36 patients. Br J Anaesth. 1980;52:803–6.
- Rahman MH, Mondal BC, Ahmed NC, Ilam SD, Faruquee ZA. Hemodynamic response after induction of anesthesia in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery for poor LV function. A comparison between thiopental/fentanyl and etomidate/fentanyl. Birdem Med J. 2013;3:23–6.
- Vermeyen KM, Erpels FA, Janssen LA, Beeckman CP, Hanegreefs GH. Propofol-fentanyl anaesthesia for coronary bypass surgery in patients with good left ventricular function. Br J Anaesth. 1987;59:1115–20.
- Kaplan JA, Guffin AV, Mikula S, Dolman J, Profeta J. Comparative hemodynamic effects of propofol and thiamylal sodium during anesthetic induction for myocardial revascularization. J Cardiothorac Anesth. 1988;2:297–302.
- Yunqi L, Juhong R, Wenxia Z. Etomidate for induction of anesthesia in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery. J Med Forum. 2006 02.
- Morel J, Salard M, Castelain C, Bayon MC, Lambert P, Vola M, et al. Haemodynamic consequences of etomidate administration in elective cardiac surgery: A randomized double-blinded study. Br J Anaesth. 2011;107:503–9.
Source: PubMed