ArticleThe journal of Tehran Heart Center2024
Comparing the Hemodynamic Effects of Midazolam, Etomidate, and Propofol following Anesthesia Induction in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in The journal of Tehran Heart Center, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hemodynamic disorders during anesthesia lead to complications. To reduce hemodynamic complications, this study was conducted to compare midazolam, etomidate, and propofol following anesthesia induction in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG). Methods: A double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted involving 90 patients with coronary artery disease. These patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups receiving propofol, etomidate, or midazolam. Hemodynamic variables, including systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial blood pressure (MABP), and heart rate (HR), were measured at baseline, before intubation, and 1 and 5 minutes after intubation. Results: Ninety patients with coronary artery disease (mean age: 60.83 y) were included in the study. Women and men comprised 74.4% and 25.6% of the study population. HR, SBP, DBP, and MABP exhibited significant decreases in all 3 groups after intubation. The etomidate group demonstrated the least change in SBP (P<0.001) and MABP (P<0.001), followed by the midazolam group. Concerning HR, the least change was observed in the midazolam group, followed by the propofol group (P=0.688). After intubation, blood pressure increased almost equally in the etomidate and midazolam groups compared with the levels during intubation. In contrast, the propofol group exhibited a downward trend in blood pressure during intubation, a significant difference across all 3 groups (P<0.001). Conclusion: This study, conducted on candidates for CABG, demonstrated that anesthesia induction with etomidate and midazolam resulted in less variation in hemodynamic variables compared with propofol.
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.