Display options
Cite
Shah SB, Chowdhury I, Bhargava AK, et al. Comparison of hemodynamic effects of intravenous etomidate versus propofol during induction and intubation using entropy guided hypnosis levels. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015;31(2):180-5doi: 10.4103/0970-9185.155145.
Shah, S. B., Chowdhury, I., Bhargava, A. K., & Sabbharwal, B. (2015). Comparison of hemodynamic effects of intravenous etomidate versus propofol during induction and intubation using entropy guided hypnosis levels. Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology, 31(2), 180-5. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9185.155145
Shah, Shagun Bhatia, et al. "Comparison of hemodynamic effects of intravenous etomidate versus propofol during induction and intubation using entropy guided hypnosis levels." Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology vol. 31,2 (2015): 180-5. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9185.155145
Shah SB, Chowdhury I, Bhargava AK, Sabbharwal B. Comparison of hemodynamic effects of intravenous etomidate versus propofol during induction and intubation using entropy guided hypnosis levels. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015 Apr-Jun;31(2):180-5. doi: 10.4103/0970-9185.155145. PMID: 25948897; PMCID: PMC4411830.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015 Apr-Jun;31(2):180-5. doi: 10.4103/0970-9185.155145.

Comparison of hemodynamic effects of intravenous etomidate versus propofol during induction and intubation using entropy guided hypnosis levels.

Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology

Shagun Bhatia Shah, Itee Chowdhury, Ajay Kumar Bhargava, Bhawnish Sabbharwal

Affiliations

  1. Department of Anaesthesia, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, India.

PMID: 25948897 PMCID: PMC4411830 DOI: 10.4103/0970-9185.155145

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic responses during induction and intubation between propofol and etomidate using entropy guided hypnosis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty ASA I & II patients in the age group 20-60 yrs, scheduled for modified radical mastectomy were randomly allocated in two groups based on induction agent Etomidate or Propofol. Both groups received intravenous midazolam 0.03 mg kg(-1) and fentanyl 2 μg kg(-1) as premedication. After induction with the desired agent titrated to entropy 40, vecuronium 0.1 mg kg(-1) was administered for neuromuscular blockade. Heart rate, systolic, diastolic and mean arterial pressures, response entropy [RE] and state entropy [SE] were recorded at baseline, induction and upto three minutes post intubation. Data was subject to statistical analysis SPSS (version 12.0) the paired and the unpaired Student's T-tests for equality of means.

RESULTS: Etomidate provided hemodynamic stability without the requirement of any rescue drug in 96.6% patients whereas rescue drug ephedrine was required in 36.6% patients in propofol group. Reduced induction doses 0.15mg kg(-1) for etomidate and 0.98 mg kg(-1) for propofol, sufficed to give an adequate anaesthetic depth based on entropy.

CONCLUSION: Etomidate provides more hemodynamic stability than propofol during induction and intubation. Reduced induction doses of etomidate and propofol titrated to entropy translated into increased hemodynamic stability for both drugs and sufficed to give an adequate anaesthetic depth.

Keywords: Entropy; etomidate; hemodynamic changes; propofol

References

  1. J Clin Anesth. 2010 May;22(3):190-5 - PubMed
  2. Br J Anaesth. 2006 May;96(5):620-6 - PubMed
  3. Indian J Anaesth. 2009 Apr;53(2):148-57 - PubMed
  4. Anaesthesia. 2010 Jun;65(6):595-600 - PubMed
  5. Br J Anaesth. 2007 Feb;98 (2):183-8 - PubMed
  6. Saudi J Anaesth. 2011 Jan;5(1):62-6 - PubMed
  7. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2007 Aug;24(8):684-8 - PubMed
  8. P R Health Sci J. 2010 Jun;29(2):91-5 - PubMed
  9. Anesth Analg. 2005 Sep;101(3):645-50, table of contents - PubMed

Publication Types