Effects of propofol versus urapidil on perioperative hemodynamics and intraocular pressure during anesthesia and extubation in ophthalmic patients.

aimTo compare the effect of propofol versus urapidil on hemodynamics and intraocular pressure during anesthesia and extubation for ophthalmic patients.

methodsEighty-two surgical patients (Class: ASA I-II) were randomly assigned to propofol (n=41) and urapidil groups (n=41). Their gender, age, body mass, operation time and dosage of anesthetics had no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The patients of propofol and urapidil groups were given propofol (1.5mg/kg) and urapidil (2.5mg/kg) respectively; and two drugs were all diluted with normal saline to 8mL. Then the drugs were given to patients by slow intravenous injection. After treatment, the patients were conducted immediate suction, tracheal extubation, and then patients wore oxygen masks for 10 minutes. By double-blind methods, before the induction medication, at the suction, and 5, 10 minutes after the extubation, we recorded the systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), pH, PaO(2), PaCO(2), SaO(2) and intraocular pressure (IOP) respectively. The complete recovery time of the patients with restlessness (on the command they could open eyes and shaking hands) was also recorded during the extubation. The data were analyzed by using a professional SPSS 15.0 statistical software.

resultsThe incidence of cough, restlessness and glossocoma was significantly lower in the propofol group than that in the urapidil group after extubation (P<0.05). There were no episodes of hypotension, laryngospasm, or severe respiratory depression. There was no statistical difference in recovery time between two groups (P>0.05). In propofol group, the BP and HR during extubation and thereafter had no significant difference compared with those before induction, while they were significantly lower than those before giving propofol (P<0.05), and had significant difference compared with those in urapidil group (P<0.05). Compared to preinduction, the BP of urapidil group showed no obvious increase during aspiration and extubation. The HR of urapidil group had little changes after being given urapidil, and it was obviously increased compared with that before induction. The stimulation of aspiration and extubation caused less cough and agitation in propofol group than that in urapidil group (P<0.05). The IOP of propofol group showed no obvious increase during extubation compared with that in preinduction, while in the urpidil group, extubation caused IOP significantly increased (P<0.05). The changes in these indicators between the two groups had no significant difference (P>0.05).

conclusionCompared to urapidil, propofol is superior for preventing the cardiovascular and stress responses and IOP increases during emergence and extubation for the ophthalmic patients. Moreover, it has no effects on patient's recovery.