Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30283177›Full record

ArticleAnesthesia, essays and researches

A Study Comparing Propofol Auto-coinduction and Standard Propofol Induction in Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia Without Midazolam Pretreatment: A Prospective Randomized Control Trial.

Unnikrishnan Prathapadas, Maya Gomathiamma, Appavoo Arulvelan, Karen Ruby Lionel, Ajay Prasad Hrishi

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesia, essays and researches. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Unnikrishnan PrathapadasDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Neuroanesthesia Division, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum, Kerala, India.
Maya GomathiammaDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Government Medical College, Thrissur, Kerala, India.
Appavoo ArulvelanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Institute of Neuro Sciences, SIMS Hospital, Chennai, India.
Karen Ruby LionelDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Ajay Prasad HrishiDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Neuroanesthesia Division, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum, Kerala, India.
Government Medical College · INChristian Medical College & Hospital · INSree Chitra Thirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPropofol has emerged as an induction agent of choice over the past two decades due to its quick, smooth induction and rapid recovery. The main concern for an anesthesiologist is the hemodynamic instability caused by the standard induction dose of propofol (2-3 mg/kg).

aimWe aim to study the efficacy of propofol auto-coinduction technique in comparison to the standard propofol induction technique in terms of the total induction dose requirement of propofol, the incidence of hemodynamic side effects and pain on injection, and the incidence of fentanyl-induced cough (FIC) in the absence of a synergistic agent like midazolam. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis was a prospective, observer-blinded, randomized controlled trial. The study was initiated after obtaining the institutional ethics committee approval and is registered in the Clinical Trials Registry India. Eighty American Society of Anesthesiology Physical Status I and II patients, of either sex, aged between 18 and 55 years, and scheduled for elective surgeries under general anesthesia were randomized into two equal groups. Patients allocated to Group I (auto-coinduction) received 20% of the calculated dose of injection propofol 2 mg/kg (i.e., 0.4 mg/kg) as the priming dose followed by injection fentanyl 1 μg/kg after 1 min and the remaining propofol was administered in titrated doses till loss of verbal response after 2 min. In Group II (control), patients received injection fentanyl 1 μg/kg followed by single bolus dose of injection propofol up to 2 mg/kg till loss of verbal response. Midazolam was not used for premedication or induction. Intubation was carried out only after ensuring achievement of optimum depth of anesthesia using bispectral index scale. The total dose of propofol administrated for induction, occurrence of pain on injection, severity of cough after fentanyl administration, hemodynamic parameters, and apneic episodes were recorded. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: All data were expressed as mean ± 2 standard deviation. For statistical analysis, SPSS software version 16 (SPSS Inc., 2007, Chicago, IL, USA) was used.

resultsThe mean dose of injection propofol required for induction was significantly lower in Group I (67.0 ± 17.9 mg) when compared with Group II (111.3 ± 17.6 mg) (

conclusionIn our study, we found that the induction dose requirement of propofol was significantly lower in the auto-coinduction group when compared to the conventional induction group. The auto-coinduction technique offered a stable hemodynamic profile, reduced pain on injection, and less incidence of FIC as compared to the conventional propofol induction technique.

Indexed as

Auto-coinductiongeneral anesthesiapropofol

Identifiers

PMID30283177
PMCPMC6157219
OpenAlexW2890225272

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.