Variation of hemodynamic response following induction and tracheal intubation: etomidate vs midazolam
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20170820Keywords:
Etomidate, Endotracheal intubation, Haemodynemic stability, MidazolamAbstract
Background: Induction and endotracheal intubation are invariably associated with certain cardiovascular changes during anaesthesia practice and can lead to sudden swings of blood pressure, arrhythmias, MI and cardiovascular collapse especially in geriatric and haemodynamically unstable patients. Therefore it is desirable to use a safer agent with fewer adverse effects to minimise these complications. Present prospective randomized study is designed to compare the haemodynamic alterations and various adverse effects following induction with etomidate and midazolam.
Methods: Hundred ASA I and II patients of age group 18-60 years scheduled for elective surgical procedure under general anesthesia were randomly divided into two groups of 50 each receiving etomidate (0.3mg/kg) and midazolam (0.15mgk/kg) as an induction agent. Vital parameters before and after induction and thereafter at specified time interval following laryngoscopy and intubation were recorded for comparison. Adverse effect viz. pain on injection, apnea and myoclonic activity were also carefully watched.
Results: Demographic variables in both the groups were comparable. Patients in both the groups showed little change in mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) from baseline value (p >0.05). Pain on injection and myoclonic activity were seen in etomidate group while delayed awakening was seen with Midazolam group.
Conclusions: This study concludes that both etomidate and midazolam provides haemodynamic stability but Midazolam can be preferred as an induction agent in view of fewer side effects.
References
Aggarwal S. A comparative study between propofol and etomidate in patients under general anesthesia. Rev Bras Anestesiol; 2015.
Forbes AM, Dally FG. Acute hypertension during induction of anaesthesia and endotracheal intubation in normotensive man. Br J Anaesth. 1970;42:618-24.
Forman SA. Clinical and molecular pharmacology of etomidate. Anesthesiology. 2011;114:695-707.
Johnson KB, Egan TD, Layman J. The influence of hemorrhagic shock on etomidate: A pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis. Anesthesiology. 2004;101:657-9.
Anita K. Malhotra, Con. Etomidate- The Ideal Induction Agent for a Cardiac Anesthetic? Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. 2012;27(1):178-9.
Forster A, Gardaz JP, Suter PM, Gemperle M. IV Midazolam as an induction agent for anesthesia: a study in volunteers. Br J Anesth. 1980;52(9):907-11.
Twersky RS, Hartung J, Berger BJ, McClain J, Beaton C. Midazolam enhances anterograde amnesia but not retrograde amnesia in pediatric patients. Anesthesiology. 1993;78(1):51-5.
Doenicke A. Etomidate. A new intravenous hypnotic. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 1974;25:307-15.
Wolfson AB. Harwood-Nuss’ Clinical Practice of Emer¬gency Medicine, 4th Ed; Portland; Lippincott Williams & Wilins; 2005:1150-1153.
Gooding JM, Weng JT, Smith RA. Cardiovascular and pulmonary response following etomidate induction of anesthesia in patients with demonstrated cardiac disease. Anesth Analg. 1979;058:40-1.
Daşkaya H, Uzman S, Çiftçi T, Gün Y, Toptaş M, Demir M, et al. Comparison of the hemodynamic effects of etomidate between hypertensive and normotensive patients; 2015.
Zhang GH, Sun L. Peri-intubation hemodynamic changes during low dose fentanyl, remifentanil and sufentanil combined with etomidate for anesthetic induction. Chin Med J. 2009;122:2330-4.
Ray DC, McKeown DW. Etomidate for critically ill patients. Pro:yes we can use it. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2012;29:506-22.
Ray DC, Hay AW, McKeown DW. Induction drug and outcome ofpatients admitted to the intensive care unit after emergencylaparotomy. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27:481-5.
Heath PJ, Kennedy DJ, Ogg TW, Dunling C, Gilks WR. Which intravenous induction agent for day surgery? A comparison of propofol, thiopentone, methohexitone and etomidate. 1988 May;43(5):365-8.
Forster JP, Gardaz PM, Sitter, Gemperle M, Anaesth Br. J. Midazolam as an induction agent for anaesthesia: a study in volunteers. 1980;52:907.
Schulte-Sasse U, Hess W, Tarnow J. Haemodynamic responses to induction of anaesthesia using midazolam in cardiac surgical patients. Br. J. Anaath. 1982;54:1053.
Hussain ZK, Saberi H, Bitaraf MA. The dilemma of hemodynamic instability during induction of anesthesia: can midazolam serve as a suitable substitute for thiopentone? Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 14197,1. R. Jran. 1999;17(2):115-18.
Miner JR, Danahy M, Moch A. Randomized clinical trial of Etomidate versus propofol for procedural sedation in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49:15-22.
Nyman Y, von Hofsten K, Ritzmo C. Effect of a small priming dose on myoclonic movements after intravenous anaesthesia induction with Etomidate-Lipuro in children. Br J Anaesth. 2011;107:225-8.
Nordt S, Clark R. Midazolam: A review of therapeutic uses and toxicity. J Emerg Med. 1997;15(3):357-65.
Reves, Fragen J, Vinik HR. Midazolam: Pharmacology and uses. Anesthesiology. 1985;62:310-24.
Induction Agents for Endotracheal Intubation in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock. Marie Mullen, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, MA, USA; 2012.
