Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26161330›Full record

ArticleAnesthesiology and pain medicine2015

Hemodynamic Responses to Two Different Anesthesia Regimens in Compromised Left Ventricular Function Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: Etomidate-Midazolam Versus Propofol-Ketamine.

Nahid Aghdaii, Mohsen Ziyaeifard, Seyedeh Zahra Faritus, Rasoul Azarfarin

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesiology and pain medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02910206 (Comparative Effect of Etomidate and Propofol on Major Complications After Abdominal Surgery in Elderly Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02910206 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Comparative Effect of Etomidate and Propofol on Major Complications After Abdominal Surgery in Elderly Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorZhihong LURan2017 to 2020Enrolled1,917ConditionsPostoperative ComplicationsArmsEtomidate, propofol, Sufentanil, Cisatracurium
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nahid AghdaiiRajaie Cardiovascular Medical Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mohsen ZiyaeifardRajaie Cardiovascular Medical Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Seyedeh Zahra FaritusRajaie Cardiovascular Medical Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Rasoul AzarfarinRajaie Cardiovascular Medical Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Iran University of Medical Sciences · IRShaheed Rajaei Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVarious methods have been suggested to prevent hemodynamic instability caused by propofol and adverse effects caused by etomidate induction. The current study evaluated hemodynamic effects of propofol-ketamine mixture in comparison to etomidate-midazolam mixture during anesthesia induction.

objectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic effects of etomidate-midazolam by comparing it with propofol-ketamine for the induction of anesthesia in patients with left ventricular dysfunction undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. PATIENTS AND

methodsOne-hundred patients aged between 40 and 65 with coronary artery disease and low ejection fraction scheduled for elective coronary artery bypass surgery participated in this study. The patients were randomly allotted to one of the two groups to receive either propofol-ketamine or etomidate-midazolam combination. Two groups were compared for pain on injection and myoclonus, Heart Rate (HR), Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP), Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP), Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP), Cardiac Index (CI) and Systemic Vascular Resistance (SVR), before and one minute after induction of anesthesia, and one, three and five minutes after intubation.

resultsIncidence of pain on injection (2 - 4%) and myoclonus (10%) was less in both groups. The hemodynamic response was similar in the two groups for all variables over the time interval, except for CI at one and three minutes after intubation (P = 0.024 and P = 0.048, respectively), and SVR in five minutes after intubation (P = 0.009), with differences being statistically significant.

conclusionsBoth anesthetic regimens were acceptable for induction in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

Indexed as

Combined-AnestheticsCoronary Artery BypassHemodynamicsLeft Ventricular Dysfunction

Identifiers

PMID26161330
PMCPMC4493732
OpenAlexW830472284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.