Comparison of hemodynamic stability of propofol ketamine versus etomidate ketamine during induction in peritonitis cases posted for emergency surgery
-
Published:2023-03-31
Issue:2
Volume:
Page:33-39
-
ISSN:2504-5679
-
Container-title:EUREKA: Health Sciences
-
language:
-
Short-container-title:Eureka: HS
Author:
Suneetha DadiORCID, Rajaratnakumar NimmagaddaORCID, Kumar Sunkesula BharatORCID, Athmakuri Krishna SakethORCID, Quadri Syeda FarozanORCID, Vani ShalmalaORCID
Abstract
The aim: The aim of the present study is to evaluate the hemodynamic stability of propofol ketamine versus etomidate ketamine during induction of anaesthesia in peritonitis cases posted for emergency surgery.
Methods: Sixty patients with peritonitis, posted for emergency surgery under general anaesthesia, were randomly allocated to two groups. Group propofol ketamine (P + K) comprised of 30 patients (n=30) were induced with propofol 1 mg/kg and ketamine 0.75 mg/kg IV. Group etomidate ketamine (E + K) comprised 30 patients induced with etomidate 0.3 mg/kg and ketamine 0.75 mg/kg. The hemodynamic effects of the combination of the drugs in both groups were compared before and after induction.
Results: The change in saturation (SPO2) and Heartrate between the groups P+K & group E+K before induction and after intubation was similar in both groups. There was a statistically insignificant fall in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and mean arterial pressure (MAP) in group P+K before and after induction when compared to group E+K.
Conclusions: The propofol ketamine and etomidate ketamine combinations have a similar haemodynamic profile and are equally effective in maintaining haemodynamic stability during induction and intubation.
Publisher
OU Scientific Route
Subject
Computer Networks and Communications,Hardware and Architecture,Software
Reference21 articles.
1. Kulah, B., Gulgez, B., Ozmen, M. M., Ozer, M. V., Coskun, F. et al. (2003). Emergency bowel surgery in elderly. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, 14, 189–193. 2. Møller, M. H., Engebjerg, M. C., Adamsen, S., Bendix, J., Thomsen, R. W. (2011). The Peptic Ulcer Perforation (PULP) score: a predictor of mortality following peptic ulcer perforation. A cohort study. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 56 (5), 655–662. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-6576.2011.02609.x 3. Eissa, D., Carton, E. G., Buggy, D. J. (2010). Anaesthetic management of patients with severe sepsis. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 105 (6), 734–743. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aeq305 4. Afridi, S. P., Malik, P., Ur-Rahman, S., Shamim, S., Samo, K. A. (2008). Spectrum of perforation peritonitis in Pakistan: 300 cases Eastern experience. World Journal of Emergency Surgery, 3 (1), 31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-7922-3-31 5. Hosseinzadeh, H., Eidy, M., Golzari, S. E., Vasebi, M. et al. (2013). Hemodynamic Stability during Induction of Anesthesia in Elderly Patients: Propofol + Ketamine versus Propofol + Etomidate. Journal of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Research, 5, 51–54.
|
|