EVALUATION OF PAIN ON INJECTION, HAEMODYNAMICS AND POSTOPERATIVE NAUSEA AND VOMITING FOLLOWING INDUCTION WITH PROPOFOL, ETOMIDATE-LIPURO AND COINDUCTION WITH PROPOFOL

被引:0
|
作者
Sharma, Kunal [1 ]
Mehta, Nandita [2 ]
Gupta, Sunana [2 ]
机构
[1] GMC, Dept Anaesthesiol, Jammu, India
[2] ASCOMS&H, Dept Anaesthesiol, Jammu, India
关键词
Propofol; Etomidate-Lipuro; Coinduction;
D O I
10.14260/jemds/2018/39
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND Induction of general anaesthesia is the most important phase, which can be achieved by various inhalational and intravenous agents. An ideal inducing agent for general anaesthesia should have haemodynamic stability and minimal respiratory depression, rapid clearance and minimal side effects. Propofol is the most commonly used induction agent, as it has rapid onset and early recovery due to short half-life and rapid elimination from the blood circulation. Propofol is associated with pain([1]) during induction, which is sometimes very distressing to patients and it can also cause haemodynamic instability. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of pain on injection, haemodynamic changes following induction and the incidence of PONV using etomidate-lipuro, propofol and coinduction with propofol and etomidate-lipuro. MATERIALS AND METHODS This is a randomised, controlled trial. A total of 90 patients with ASA I and II were randomly allocated into three groups, i.e. Group E, Group P and Group P + E. Group E patients received etomidate 0.3 mg/kg, Group P patients received propofol 2 mg/kg and Group P + E received propofol 1 mg/kg + etomidate 0.2 mg/kg for induction of anaesthesia. The incidence of pain on injection was observed during the infusion of drugs, haemodynamic changes including heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and mean blood pressure were accessed after induction and after intubation at various time intervals. The incidence of PONV was accessed for 24 hrs. postoperatively. RESULTS Comparing the three groups, it was seen that the incidence of pain on injection was maximum in propofol group followed by etomidate group and was reduced to a highly significant level in etomidate + propofol group (p < 0.0001). The haemodynamic (systolic, diastolic and mean blood pressures, heart rate) changes were minimal in Propofol + Etomidate group. Etomidate group was associated with higher incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSION We concluded that coinduction with etomidate-lipuro and propofol resulted in lesser incidence of injection pain, minimal haemodynamic changes and lesser incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting as compared to either drug given alone for induction of anaesthesia.
引用
收藏
页码:176 / 180
页数:5
相关论文
共 19 条
  • [1] A clinical comparison of etomidate-lipuro, propofol and admixture at induction
    Saricaoglu, Fatma
    Uzun, Sennur
    Arun, Oguzhan
    Arun, Funda
    Aypar, Ulku
    [J]. SAUDI JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2011, 5 (01) : 62 - 66
  • [2] Comparison of Induction Characteristics of Propofol-Lipuro and Etomidate-Lipuro in Cardiac Patients in Non-cardiac Surgery
    Kaur, Sarabjit
    Kataria, Amar Parkash
    Kaur, Gagandeep
    Kaur, Mandip
    Attri, Joginder Pal
    Mohan, Brij
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY, 2014, 2 (06) : 66 - 72
  • [3] Comparison of Induction Characteristics of two Anaesthetic Agents: Etomidate-lipuro and Propofol for Day Care Surgery
    Govardhane, Balasaheb Tukaram
    Basantwani, Shakuntala Nanikraam
    Pal, Ajay
    Magar, Jyoti Sandeep
    Tendolkar, Bharati Anil
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH, 2018, 12 (03) : UC01 - UC04
  • [4] Etomidate-®Lipuro is associated with considerably less injection pain in children compared with propofol with added lidocaine
    Nyman, Y.
    Von Hofsten, K.
    Palm, C.
    Eksborg, S.
    Lonnqvist, P. A.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2006, 97 (04) : 536 - 539
  • [5] Propofol induction is more effective than ondansetron in prophylaxis of postoperative nausea, but not vomiting
    Tezcan, C
    Ates, Y
    Donmez, A
    Ozatamer, O
    [J]. ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 1996, 82 (01): : 219 - 219
  • [6] Postoperative nausea and vomiting. Propofol or thiopentone: Does choice of induction agent affect outcome?
    Myles, PS
    Hendrata, M
    Bennett, AM
    Langley, M
    Buckland, MR
    [J]. ANAESTHESIA AND INTENSIVE CARE, 1996, 24 (03) : 355 - 359
  • [7] An evaluation of pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting following the introduction of guidelines for tonsillectomy
    White, MC
    Nolan, JA
    [J]. PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA, 2005, 15 (08) : 683 - 688
  • [8] An evaluation of pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting following the introduction of guidelines for tonsillectomy
    Ewah, B.
    [J]. PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA, 2006, 16 (10) : 1100 - 1101
  • [9] Comparison of subhypnotic doses of thiopentone vs propofol on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting following middle ear surgery
    Honkavaara, P
    Saarnivaara, L
    [J]. ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 1998, 42 (02) : 211 - 215
  • [10] An evaluation of pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting following the introduction of guidelines for tonsillectomy - Reply
    White, Michelle C.
    Nolan, Judith A.
    [J]. PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA, 2006, 16 (10) : 1101 - 1101