ArticleCureus2022
A Comparison of Hemodynamic Changes Between the Use of Etomidate and Propofol as Induction Agents for Anesthesia in Daycare Surgeries.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective The development of modern anesthetic agents has made it possible to conduct pain-free surgical procedures. The role of the anesthetist in choosing a suitable anesthetic agent to provide a good anesthetic and sedative effect is very important in any surgical procedure. There is always a degree of risk involved as the hemodynamic parameters may be altered. This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic changes and respiratory effects between the use of etomidate and propofol for the induction of general anesthesia (GA) as well as to compare the side effects of both drugs in daycare surgeries. Methods The study was a parallel-design, randomized, double-blinded control trial conducted over a period of three years among patients undergoing elective daycare surgeries under GA. The patients were classified into two groups depending on the type of drug received: Group A or the propofol group and Group B or the etomidate group. Randomization was done by computer-generated random number generator software. A total of 174 patients were selected (87 in each group) at a ratio of 1:1. A baseline evaluation of the hemodynamic parameters was done followed by continuous monitoring. Results The age, weight, and gender distribution of the patients in both groups were comparable. Significant hemodynamic changes were observed following induction in Group A. The fall in systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and mean arterial blood pressure (MABP) in Group A following induction was found to be statistically significant (p<0.00). The rise in heart rate was almost similar in both groups, with Group A demonstrating a slightly higher rate. There were fewer signs of respiratory depression in Group B. The major side effects observed after induction were myoclonus, which was more prevalent in Group B patients (21.84%), and pain at the injection site, which was observed more frequently in Group A (17.1%). Conclusion Based on our findings, etomidate is a drug with better hemodynamic stability and less pain at the site of injection compared to propofol. Hence, it may be a better induction agent in daycare surgeries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.