Introduction: Laryngoscopy and subsequent tracheal intubation cause a fugitive tachycardia and hypertension as a result of sympathoadrenal stimulation. Careful selection of anestheshetic is thus required, as cardiovascular reserve is decreased in certain patients, so as to avoid undue depressions of cardiac and circulatory function Aims And Objectives: This randomized double blind prospective study had been designed for comparative evaluation of inj propofol 2.5 mg/kg, inj Etomidate 0.3 mg/kg an induction agent on haemodynamic changes such as HR, SBP, DBP, MAP and oxygen saturation during induction and tracheal intubation and also to study the adverse effects the two drugs under study Material And Methods: After approval from medical ethics committee, Dr D Y Patil Medical College and Hospital, Pune, the study was carried out on sixty (60) patients undergoing elective surgeries under standard general anesthesia. ? All patients were premedicated with Ondansetron 0.1mg/kg i.v., inj midazolam 0.02mg/kg and inj fentanyl 2 mcg/kg i.v. ? All patients pre-oxygenated with 100% oxygen for 3 min, all vital parameters recorded (T1) ? Group P received inj. propofol 2.5 mg/kg i.v. and group E received Etomidate 0.3mg/kg i.v. over 30 sec and vital parameters recorded as (T2) ? Inj succinylcholine as muscle relaxant given after administering induction agent, laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation attempted with appropriate sized endotracheal tube. All vital parameters recorded during laryngoscopy(T3), periodic monitoring of vital parameters carried out at 1,2,3,5 and 10 minutes intervals post intubation ? Further the patient was maintained on O2 /N2O / Isoflurane and Vecuronium i.v. top-ups as and when required ? At the end of surgery, patient reversed with inj. Glycopyrrolate 0.008mg/kg i.v. along with inj. Neostigmine 0.05mg/kg intravenously and extubated after gaining consciousness and adequate power ? Patient shifted to recovery room observed for any side effects such as nausea, vomiting, Result: The demographic profile was comparable. There was no statistically considerable difference between the two study groups with respect to baseline parameters of HR, SBP, DBP, MAP and SpO2. There was decrease in mean heart rate seen in group P compared to group E at post induction (T2), after intubation 1 min, 2min, the values were statistically significant with P value <0.05,.and decrease in mean SBP, mean DBP AND MAP in group P compared to group E at post induction (T2), after intubation 1,2 3, 5 min values were statistically significant with p value <0.05 Pain on injection was more in group P 26 out of 30(86.7%) than group E, which was statistically significant with p value <0.05 Incidence of myoclonus was more in group E 23 patients out of 30(76.7%) compared to group P which was statistically significant with p value <0.05. In group P 2 out of 30 patients (6.7%) had vomiting and in group E 3 out of 30 patients (10%) had vomiting, difference was statistically insignificant with p value >0.05 Conclusion: A• Both, Propofol and etomidate are safe induction agents A• Etomidate maintains better haemodynamic stability than propofol as induction agent A• Pain on injection was more with propofol. However, myoclonus was more with etomidate A• Both drugs were associated with no significant side effects/complication.
A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN ETOMIDATE AND PROPOFOL AS AN INDUCTION AGENT DURING INDUCTION, LARYNGOSCOPY AND INTUBATION
