Comparison of etomidate and propofol as an induction agent to study hemodynamic effects and serum cortisol level following endotracheal intubation in hypertensive patients

Kinjal M. Solanki; Kinna G. Shah; Dipesh P. Shah; Jayshreeben M. Thakkar

doi:10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20233897

Authors

Kinjal M. Solanki Department of Anesthesia, Gujarat Cancer & Research Institute, B. J. Medical Collage, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
Kinna G. Shah Department of Anesthesia, Dr. M. K. Shah Medical College, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
Dipesh P. Shah Department of Anesthesia, S. V. P Hospital, N. H. L. Medical Collage, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
Jayshreeben M. Thakkar Department of Anesthesia, Gujarat Cancer & Research Institute, B. J. Medical Collage, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20233897

Keywords:

Intubation, Etomidate, Propofol, Myoclonus, Serum cortisol, Hemodynamic stability

Abstract

Background: The present study aimed to compare hemodynamic parameters (heart rate, blood pressure) and adverse effects (injection pain, myoclonus, postoperative nausea/vomiting) between Etomidate and propofol groups.

Methods: Patients were divided into two groups: Etomidate Group E and a Propofol Group P. All hemodynamic data were measured during induction, intubation, and post-intubation up to 15 min. Intravenous cortisol levels were measured at baseline, just after induction and at 24 hours after induction.

Results: At 3 min and 5 min SBP was decreased by 22.04% and 18.39% in Group P. At 3 min there was fall in DBP by 20.13% in group P whereas there was an increase in group E by 0.13% which is statistically significant (p<0.001). At 1 min, 3 min and 5 min after intubation, fall in the MAP by 26.07%, 21.08% and 18.60% in group P and 0.77%, 0.42% and 1.30% in group E (p value <0.001). Serum cortisol level immediate after surgery was decrease (54%) in Group E (p value <0.001). In Group P, 40% of the patients and in group E 16.66 % of the patients complained of pain on injection (p value 0.046).

Conclusions: The cortisol suppression by Etomidate may be beneficial for intubation stress response. Etomidate is better for its hemodynamic stability over propofol.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Steingraber A, Simon C. Hiller. Pharmacology and physiology in anesthetic practice. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins Publishers; 2006:159-60.

Longnecker DE. Stress free: to be or not to be?. Anesthesiology. 1984;61:643.

Owen H, Spence AA. Etomidate. Br J Anaesth. 1984; 56:555.

Larsen R, Rathgeber J, Bagdahn A. Effects of Propofol oncardiovascular dynamics andcoronary blood flow in geriatric patients; A comparison with Etomidate. Anaesthesia. 1988;43:25-31.

Van-Aken H, Meinshausen E, Prien T. The influence of fentanyl andtracheal intubation on thehemodynamic effects of anesthesia inductionwith Propofol/N2O in humans. Anesthesiology. 1988;68: 157-63.

Stoelting, Roberta L. Hinges, Katherine E. Marschall. Stoelting’sAnesthesia and Co- existing Disease. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone; 2009.

Carlos R, Innerarity S. Effect of Premedication on Etomidate Anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth.1979;51:1159.

Fragen RJ. Clinical pharmacology of propofol. Anesthesiology. 1987;66:839.

Diago MC. Ose of etomidate. Anaesthesia. 1988; 43:644.

Masoudifar M, Beheshtian E. Comparison of cardiovascular response tolaryngoscopy andtracheal intubation after induction of anaesthesia by Propofol and Etomidate. J Res Med Sci. 2013;18(10):870-4

Etomidate and propofol. Available at: https://www.The_Effects_of_Etomidate_and_Propofol_Indcion_on_Hemodynamic_and_Endocrine_Response_in_Patients_Undergoing_Coronary_Artery_Bypass_Graft_Surgery_on_Cardiopulmonary_Bypass. Accessed on 20 February 2023.

Skinner HJ, Biswas A, Mahajan RP. Evaluation of intubating conditionswith rocuronium andeither propofol or etomidate for rapid sequenceinduction. Anaesthesia. 1998;53(7):702-6

Ko YK, Kim YH, Park S, Chung WS, Noh C, Lee JU. Comparison ofetomidate and propofol on intubating conditions and the onset time associated with cisatracurium administration. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2015;68(2):136-40.

Ye L, Xiao X, Zhu L. Comparison of etomidate and propofol anesthesiain patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic reviewand meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2017;27(1):1-7.

Aggarwal S, Goyal VK, Chaturvedi SK, Mathur V, Baj B, Kumar A. A comparative study between propofol and etomidate in patients under general anesthesia. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2016;66(3):237-41.

Harris CE, Murray M, Anderson AM, Grounds RM, Morgan M. Effectsof thiopentone and propofol on the hemodynamic response to trachealintubation. Anaesthesia. 1988;43:32-6.

Shah S, Chowdhury I, Bhargava A, Sabbharwal B. Comparison ofhemodynamic effects of intravenous etomidate versus propofol duringinduction and intubation using entropy guided hypnosis levels. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015;31(2):180.

Petrun MPA, Kameni K. Bispectral index-guided induction ofgeneral anaesthesia in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery usingpropofol or etomidate: a double-blind, randomized, clinical trial. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110(30):388-96.

Kaushal RP, Vatal A, Pathak R. Effect of etomidate and propofolinduction on hemodynamic and endocrine response in patients undergoingcoronary artery bypass grafting/mitral valve and aortic valve replacementsurgery on cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Cardiac Anaesthes. 2015;18(2):172.

Mayer M, Doenicke A, Nebauer AE, Hepting L. Propofol and etomidate-Lipuro for induction of general anesthesia. Hemodynamics, vascular compatibility, subjective findings and postoperative nausea. Anaesthesist. 1996;45(11):1082-4.

Kaur S, Kataria AP, Kaur G, Kaur M, Attri JP, Mohan B. Comparison of induction characteristics of propofol-lipuro and etomidate-lipuro in cardiac patients in non-cardiac Surgery. Int J Sci Stud. 2014; 2(6):66-72.

Wu J, Yao S, Wu Z, Wu Z, Chu S, Xia G, et al. A comparison ofanesthetic regimens using etomidate and propofol in patients undergoingfirst-trimester abortions: double-blind, randomized clinical trial of safety andefficacy. Contraception. 2013;87(1):55-62.