The Effect of Propofol on Peri-Induction Hemodynamics and Resuscitation in Operative Penetrating Trauma

Abstract

Background Hemorrhaging trauma patients may be disproportionately affected by choice of induction agent during rapid sequence intubation (RSI). Etomidate, ketamine, and propofol are safe in the trauma population-at-large but have not been assessed in patients with ongoing hemorrhage. We hypothesize that in hemorrhaging patients with penetrating injury, propofol deleteriously affects peri-induction hypotension compared to etomidate and ketamine. Methods Retrospective cohort study. Primary outcome was the effect of induction agent on peri-induction systolic blood pressure. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of peri-induction vasopressor use and quantity of peri-induction blood transfusion requirements. Linear multivariate regression modeling assessed the effect of induction agent on the variables of interest. Results 169 patients were included, 146 received propofol and 23 received etomidate or ketamine. Univariate analysis revealed no difference in peri-induction systolic blood pressure (P = .53), peri-induction vasopressor administration (P = .62), or transfusion requirements within the first hour after induction (PRBC P = .24, FFP P = .19, PLT P = .29). Choice of RSI agent did not independently predict peri-induction systolic blood pressure or blood product administration. Rather, only presenting shock index independently predicted peri-induction hypotension. Conclusions This is the first study to directly assess the peri-induction effects of anesthetic induction agent choice in penetrating trauma patients undergoing emergent hemorrhage control surgery. Propofol does not appear to worsen peri-induction hypotension regardless of dose. Patient physiology is most predictive of peri-induction hypotension.