Key result
Etomidate demonstrated significantly less variation in SPO2 (0.17 vs 2.57, p=0.026) and faster recovery to verbal commands (2.68 vs 5.64 minutes, p=0.0001) compared to propofol.
Why the study?
Does etomidate improve hemodynamic stability and recovery time compared to propofol in patients undergoing short surgical procedures?
RCT (n=60)
Open-label
Computer generated software
No
Does etomidate improve hemodynamic stability and recovery time compared to propofol in patients undergoing short surgical procedures?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.17% vs 2.57%
p-value: p=0.026
Etomidate provides faster recovery and better hemodynamic stability with fewer side effects compared to propofol for short surgical procedures under total intravenous anesthesia.
Positions etomidate as a preferable induction agent for short procedures requiring rapid recovery;.
Background: Etomidate and Propofolare two ultra short-acting IV induction agents. Studies for long duration surgeries found that etomidate provides effective, reliable anaesthesia, rapid recovery and minimal side effect but very less studies are available for short duration surgical procedures. A present study was aimed to evaluate hemodynamicchanges, compare duration of recovery from anaesthesia and compare safety of both drugs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dr Karan M Patel (2017) conducted an RCT in Short surgical procedures (n=60). Etomidate vs. Propofol (2 mg/kg i.v. bolus followed by i.v. infusion 100 mcg/kg/min) was evaluated on Mean variation of SPO2 after 5 minutes of induction (p=0.026). Etomidate demonstrated significantly less variation in SPO2 (0.17 vs 2.57, p=0.026) and faster recovery to verbal commands (2.68 vs 5.64 minutes, p=0.0001) compared to propofol.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: