Comparative assessment of side effects of etomidate and propofol: A double blinded study from urban Karnataka

Journal Title: Medpulse International Journal of Anesthesiology - Year 2019, Vol 9, Issue 2

Abstract

Background: Propofol and Etomidate is commonly used in anaesthesia practice. However pain on injection and myoclonus are the most common side effects of this drug. Objectives: To compare the side effects between Etomidate and Propofol. Methodology: In this prospective randomized double blinded study, we studied 60 patients randomly allocated into either group P (propofol group) or to group E (Etomidate group) of 30 each. All patients premedicated with inj. midazolam 0.02mg/kg IV, inj. Fentanyl 2 microgm/kg IV. Group P received propofol infusion at 0.5 mg/kg/hr and group E at 0.05mg/kg/hr until BIS value dropped to 50. Then patients were intubated with vecuronium 0.1mg/kg and anaesthesia maintained according to institutional protocol followed by extubation after adequate recovery. Hemodynamic parameters and side effects during induction were recorded between both groups until the infusion of study drug. Results: So prevalence of myoclonus was found to be 40% in Etomidate group. Prevalence of Thrombophlebitis in etomidate was found to be 13.3%. Proportion of patients experienced pain was more in Propofol group i.e. 36.7% as compared to Etomidate i.e. 20%. (>0.05). 10 patients in Etomidate group experienced nausea i.e. 33.3% as compared to 2 in Propofol group i.e. 6.7%. (<0.05). 3 patients in Etomidate group experienced vomiting i.e. 10% as compared to 1 in Propofol group i.e. 3.3% (>0.05) Conclusion: Myoclonus and Thrombophlebitis was observed in Etomidate group only (<0.05). Propofol causes more pain as compared to Etomidate (>0.05). Propofol causes less nausea (<0.05) and vomiting (<0.05) as compared to Etomidate.

Authors and Affiliations

Ramesh babu, Mohan . , Prashanth Vadigeri, Sunil Kumar, Rajashekar Mudaraddi

Keywords

Related Articles

A comparative study of the efficacy of I.V. esmolol and megnesium sulphate in attenuating haemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation

Problem Statement: The tracheal intubation is a powerful noxious stimulus. During laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation these is cardiovascular stress response. It occurs frequently and results in increased serum concentr...

Pectoral block versus thoracic paravertebral block for analgesia in breast surgeries: A prospective randomized study

Background: Breast surgeries are associated with postoperative pain and hence various regional blocks are tried for analgesia. Aims: In this study, we compared the effects of ultrasound-guided pectoral nerve block (PECS)...

Comparison of anaesthetic efficacy of nalbuphine and dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to ropivacaine and lignocaine in supraclavicular block for upper limb surgeries

Background: Brachial plexus block provides an useful alternative to general anaesthesia for upper limb surgeries. The block characteristics of dexmedetomidine and nalbuphine as adjuvants to ropivacaine, a newly emerging...

Comparative assessment of side effects of etomidate and propofol: A double blinded study from urban Karnataka

Background: Propofol and Etomidate is commonly used in anaesthesia practice. However pain on injection and myoclonus are the most common side effects of this drug. Objectives: To compare the side effects between Etomidat...

Unilateral spinal anaesthesia: An alternative and effective approach in infra-umbilical surgeries in geriatric population

Background: Spinal anaesthesia is simple, easy to administered and reliable cost-effective technique that has been widely used for infra-umbilical surgery. For day care surgical treatment of infra-umbilical origin on one...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP521033
  • DOI 10.26611/10159210
  • Views 177
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Ramesh babu, Mohan . , Prashanth Vadigeri, Sunil Kumar, Rajashekar Mudaraddi (2019). Comparative assessment of side effects of etomidate and propofol: A double blinded study from urban Karnataka. Medpulse International Journal of Anesthesiology, 9(2), 133-136. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-521033