Why the study?
Hemodynamic fluctuation during the induction of general anesthesia is common and adversely affects patient outcomes.
Does the combination of propofol and etomidate improve hemodynamic stability and reduce induction-related side effects compared to propofol or etomidate alone in adults undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery?
Does the combination of propofol and etomidate improve hemodynamic stability and reduce induction-related side effects compared to propofol or etomidate alone in adults undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery?
The combination of propofol and etomidate for anesthesia induction provides superior hemodynamic stability and fewer side effects (injection pain, myoclonus) compared to either agent alone.
Supports propofol-etomidate induction in elective non-cardiac surgery; extends single-agent data with RCT evidence of improved stability.
Introduction Hemodynamic fluctuation during the induction of general anesthesia is a common event and adversely affect patients’ outcomes. The aim of this study is to investigate the impacts of different anesthesia induction agents: propofol, etomidate, and propofol-etomidate combination on patient hemodynamics and processed electroencephalography (EEG). Material and methods Seventy-five patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery were randomly assigned to three groups of anesthesia induction agents: the group P received 2 mg/kg propofol, the group E received 0.3 mg/kg etomidate, and the group PE received the combination of 1mg/kg propofol plus 0.15mg/kg etomidate. Hemodynamic variables and processed EEG were measured during induction. Results Heart rate (HR) was significantly increased at intubation and 1 min after intubation compared with baseline in all three groups. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) decreased significantly after induction, at 5, and 10 min after intubation in group P (79.1±12.6, 77.0±14.2, 76.6±11.4 versus 93.2±9.9 mmHg; all P<0.001). MAP increased significantly at intubation and 1 min after intubation in group E (104.7±13.0, 103.8±12.8 versus 92.9±10.2; P<0.001, P=0.001 respectively). The incidence of myoclonus was lower in groups PE (4.0%) and P (4.0%) compared with that in group E (24.0%) (P=0.033). The incidence of pain at injection was higher in group P (28.0%) than that in groups PE and E (4.0% and 0.0%) (P=0.025). Conclusions The combination of propofol and etomidate used during induction of anesthesia provided a more stable BP profile, less pain at site of injection, and decreased myoclonic movements compared with propofol or etomidate alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: