Literature DB >> 25849685

Effect of etomidate and propofol induction on hemodynamic and endocrine response in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting/mitral valve and aortic valve replacement surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass.

Ram Prasad Kaushal1, Ajay Vatal, Radhika Pathak.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The concerns for induction of anaesthesia in patients undergoing cardiac surgery include hemodynamic stability, attenuation of stress response and maintenance of balance between myocardial oxygen demand and supply. Various Intravenous anaesthetic agents like Thiopentone, Etomidate, Propofol, Midazolam, and Ketamine have been used for anesthetizing patients for cardiac surgeries. However, many authors have expressed concerns regarding induction with thiopentone, midazolam and ketamine. Hence, Propofol and Etomidate are preferred for induction in these patients. However, these two drugs have different characteristics. Etomidate is preferred for patients with poor left ventricular (LV) function as it provides stable cardiovascular profile. But there are concerns about reduction in adrenal suppression and serum cortisol levels. Propofol, on the other hand may cause a reduction in systemic vascular resistance and subsequent hypotension. Thus, this study was conducted to compare induction with these two agents in cardiac surgeries.
METHODS: Baseline categorical and continuous variables were compared using Fisher's exact test and student's t test respectively. Hemodynamic variables were compared using student's t test for independent samples. The primary outcome (serum cortisol and blood sugar) of the study was compared using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. The P value less than 0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS: Etomidate provides more stable hemodynamic parameters as compared to Propofol. Propofol causes vasodilation and may result in drop of systematic BP. Etomidate can therefore be safely used for induction in patients with good LV function for CABG/MVR/AVR on CPB without serious cortisol suppression lasting more than twenty-four hours.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25849685      PMCID: PMC4881645          DOI: 10.4103/0971-9784.154470

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Card Anaesth        ISSN: 0971-9784


INTRODUCTION

The considerations for induction of anesthesia in patients undergoing cardiac surgery include hemodynamic stability, attenuation of the stress responses and maintenance of balance between myocardial oxygen demand and supply. Various intravenous (IV) inducing agents like thiopentone, etomidate, propofol and midazolam have been used for anesthetising these patients.[12345] Various authors have expressed concerns regarding induction of anesthesia with agents such as thiopentone, midazolam, ketamine. Propofol and etomidate are well-known anesthetic agents routinely used for the induction of anesthesia for cardiac surgeries.[678910] The two drugs however have different induction characteristics. Etomidate, first introduced in the seventies, was withdrawn, because of anaphylactic reactions to Cremaphore EL. There were also concerns about reductions in the serum cortisol levels,[91112] which lasts for up to 24 h. However, It has a very stable cardiovascular profile[11314] and has been reintroduced in India. Etomidate is recommended for induction in patients with poor left ventricular (LV) function. While, propofol may cause a reduction in systemic vascular resistance (SVR). Hence, this study was conducted to compare the effect of anesthetic induction with single dose etomidate versus propofol on serum cortisol levels and hemodynamics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After obtaining Institutional Ethics Committee approval and written informed consent from the patients, 60 patients (age: 20–60 years, weight: 40–70 kg) of American Society of Anesthesiologists Grade II and III scheduled for elective coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)/mitral valve replacement (MVR)/aortic valve replacement (AVR) on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) were enrolled in this prospective randomized study. Patients undergoing emergency surgery, having congestive cardiac failure, renal dysfunction (serum creatinine >2 mg/dl), on mechanical ventilation or on long-term steroid therapy, known adrenal or endocrine dysfunction were excluded from the study. Proper preanesthetic check-up and all relevant investigations were done for all patients. The patients were randomly divided into two groups of 30 patients each. Propofol was chosen as other inducing agents like thiopentone and ketamine are not routinely used in MVR and CABG surgeries. Group I: Injection propofol (P) group (2 mg/kg) IV. Group II: Etomidate (E) group (0.2 mg/kg) IV. Randomization was done by opening a sealed envelope just before entry to operating room. In the operation theater, pulse oximeter, noninvasive blood pressure (BP) apparatus and five lead electrocardiogram (ECG) were connected to the patient. Swan ganz catheter placement under local infiltration is done as routine in our Institution and to measure pre-induction values, i.v. Premedication in our Institution is done after the arrival of patient in OT. After peripheral IV cannulation and intra-arterial radial cannulation, central venous line and pulmonary artery/swan Ganz catheter placement under local infiltration, patient was premedicated with injection glycopyrrolate 0.2 mg IV, injection midazolam 2 mg, injection ranitidine 50 mg and injection ondansetron 4 mg. After stabilization period of 5 min, the baseline values of heart rate, systolic and diastolic BP (SBP and DBP) (invasive BP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), central venous pressure (CVP), cardiac output (CO), cardiac index (CI), pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), SVR, peripheral vascular resistance (PVR), SpO2, were recorded and ECG was monitored. All patients were induced between 8 and 9 am and samples for baseline values of serum cortisol and blood sugar were obtained before induction. Intravenous fentanyl 2 mcg/kg was given 3 min prior to induction. After preoxygenation, Group I received 2 mg/kg propofol and Group II received 0.2 mg/kg etomidate for induction. After the loss of eyelash reflex in both groups, again HR, SBP, DBP, MAP, CVP, PCWP, CO, CI, SVR, PVR were recorded. Injection vecuronium bromide 0.1 mg/kg IV was given, and endotracheal intubation was performed. Again the readings for HR, SBP, DBP, MAP, CVP, PCWP, CO, CI, PVR and SVR were recorded. Intraoperative analgesia was provided with injection fentanyl up to total dose of 20 mcg/kg as intermittent bolus doses. Anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane (0.2–2%) and injection 0.1 mg/kg vecuronium was administered as IV bolus followed by 0.02 mg/kg every 30–40 min. Femoral artery catheterization was done. Five min postintubation again HR, SBP, DBP, MAP, CVP, PCWP, CO, CI, SVR, PVR recorded. Patients received IV antibiotics after test dose and IV methylprednisolone 30 mg/kg in divided doses through central venous catheter. Heparin in the dose of 300–400 units/kg was administered prior to initiation of CPB during CPB. Serum cortisol values and blood sugar levels were again measured while the patient was on CPB. Heparin was reversed with protamine in the dose of 4.5 mg/kg after weaning the patient from CPB. Again serum cortisol and blood sugar were measured after heparin reversal. At the end of surgery, patient was shifted to the cardiac ICU with an endotracheal tube in situ after adequate dose of muscle relaxant and opioid analgesic. Patients were observed postoperatively for any adverse effects. HR, IBP, NIBP, CVP, PCWP, CO, CI, SVR, PVR were recorded: Baseline/before induction After the induction (loss of eyelash reflex and verbal response) Immediately after intubation After 5 min of intubation.

Endocrine response

Serum cortisol values and blood sugar were measured at 4 time points: Baseline before induction of anesthesia During CPB After bypass/protamine reversal of heparin after termination of CPB and At 24 h. Data were summarized as the number (%) or mean ± standard deviation/median (range) as appropriate. Baseline categorical and continuous variables were compared between the groups using Fisher's exact test and Student's t-test respectively. Hemodynamic variables were compared between the groups using Student's t-test for independent samples. The primary outcome (serum cortisol and blood sugar) of the study was compared between the groups using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test since the data was non-normal. P < 0.05 was considered as significant.

OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS

There was no significant difference in CO between both the groups though there was significant fall from baseline value in P group after induction [Tables 1–12]. The values remained below baseline even 5 min after intubation which was significant. Baseline values were comparable in both the groups and no significant changes were observed in etomidate group after induction.
Table 1

Patients characteristics and operation details

VariableGroup I (P) (n=30)Group II (E) (n=30)P
Age (years)33.96±10.8836±12.330.499
Sex (male/female)15/1516/14
Weight (kg)47.7±8.1546.26±6.930.463
Height (cm)161.1±7.7162.8±8.30.414
ASA Grade II2219
ASA Grade III811
Duration of surgery (in h)5.25±1.115.4±1.020.587
Surgical procedure
 MVR2322
 AVR46
 CABG32

Values expressed as mean±SD. *P<0.05 considered significant statistically. ASA: American Society of Anesthesiologists, MVR: Mitral valve replacement, AVR: Aortic valve replacement, CABG: Coronary artery bypass grafting, SD: Standard deviation

Table 12

Different doses of the two drugs used

DrugAuthorDose (mg/kg)
PropofolPatrick et al. (1985)[3]1.5
Vermeyen et al.[16]1.5
Kaplan et al.[17]2.5
Boer et al.[7]2
Boer et al.[1]2
Singh et al.[4]1.5
Pandey et al.[11]2
EtomidateGooding et al.[10]0.3
Colvin et al.[13]0.3
Boer et al.[1]0.3
Yunqi et al.[18]0.3
Singh et al.[4]0.2
Morel et al.[19]0.3
Pandey et al.[11]0.2
Rahman et al.[15]0.2
Patients characteristics and operation details Values expressed as mean±SD. *P<0.05 considered significant statistically. ASA: American Society of Anesthesiologists, MVR: Mitral valve replacement, AVR: Aortic valve replacement, CABG: Coronary artery bypass grafting, SD: Standard deviation Baseline hemodynamic parameters between the two groups Values expressed as mean±SD. *P<0.05 considered significant statistically. HR: Heart rate, SBP: Systolic blood pressure, DBP: Diastolic blood pressure, MAP: Mean arterial pressure, CVP: Central venous pressure, PCWP: Pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, CO: Cardiac output, CI: Cardiac index, SVR: Systemic vascular resistance, PVR: Peripheral vascular resistance, SD: Standard deviation Hemodynamic responses between the two groups Values expressed as mean±SD. *P<0.05 considered significant statistically. HR: Heart rate, SBP: Systolic blood pressure, DBP: Diastolic blood pressure, MAP: Mean arterial pressure, SD: Standard deviation CVP comparison between two groups Values expressed as mean±SD. *P<0.05 considered significant statistically. CVP: Central venous pressure, SD: Standard deviation Pulmonary capillary wedge pressure Values expressed as mean±SD. *P<0.05 considered significant statistically. PCWP: Pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, SD: Standard deviation Cardiac output Values expressed as mean±SD. *P<0.05 considered significant statistically. CO: Cardiac output, SD: Standard deviation Cardiac index Values expressed as mean±SD. *P<0.05 considered significant statistically. CI: Cardiac index, SD: Standard deviation Systemic vascular resistance Values expressed as mean±SD. *P<0.05 considered significant statistically. SVR: Systemic vascular resistance, SD: Standard deviation Pulmonary vascular resistance between two groups Values expressed as mean±SD. *P<0.05 considered significant statistically. PVR: Pulmonary vascular resistance, SD: Standard deviation Serum cortisol and blood glucose values between two groups Values expressed as mean±SD. *P<0.05 considered significant statistically. SD: Standard deviation, CPB: Cardiopulmonary bypass Associated adverse outcomes between two groups Different doses of the two drugs used Unlike Group E, Group P showed significant fall in CI after induction which continued till 5 min after intubation as compared to baseline values.

Observations

Hemodynamic parameters

There was no significant difference in between the groups with respect to HR, CVP and PCWP. There was significant decrease in SBP, DBP and MAP between the groups after induction, after intubation and 5 min postintubation. There was significant decrease in CO and CI in propofol group when compared to baseline values after induction, after intubation and 5 min after intubation, but not in etomidate group. SVR was significantly decreased after induction in both the groups while the value continued to decrease at 5 min postintubation in the propofol group and increased significantly above baseline in the etomidate group. Values in PVR were significantly decreased after induction in both groups and increased to near baseline levels by 5 min postintubation.

Myoclonus and hypotension

Myoclonus was not seen as the drug was injected slowly. hypotension occured post induction with propofol, it was defined as fall of MAP of more then 10% on the base line.

Effects on serum cortisol levels

There was significant fall in the cortisol values in etomidate group during bypass and further significant fall after weaning off CPB as compared to the propofol group. The average cortisol value was reduced to approximately 50% at the time of weaning in etomidate group while it increased to almost double in the propofol group. The serum cortisol level at 24 h was higher as compared to baseline values in both the groups. In the etomidate group, the serum cortisol returned to normal levels which were however almost twice the baseline values. In the propofol group, the serum levels remained high and were about two and a half times the baseline value.

Effects on blood glucose levels

There was significant increase in blood glucose value during bypass and when weaning off CPB in both groups compared to baseline and between the two groups, but the rise was less in etomidate group due to decreased stress response because of inhibition of cortisol synthesis. After 24 h of surgery, however the values returned to baseline with no significant differences between the groups.

DISCUSSION

The deleterious effects of anesthetic agents in patients suffering from coronary artery disease are well-known. Induction of general anesthesia may be a critical period during CABG and valve replacement surgery, especially in presence of LV dysfunction. There is a paucity of literature regarding the choice of suitable agent to avoid deleterious effects in such patients. Anesthetic induction techniques for cardiovascular surgery are based on considering hemodynamic stability and effects on myocardial oxygen supply and demand. Various authors have concern regarding induction of anesthesia with agents such as etomidate, thiopentone, propofol, ketamine and midazolam. However, the use of etomidate and propofol has been considered superior to other IV anesthetic agents in these group of patients.[56789]

Selection of inducing agent

Etomidate (Lipuro. B Braun. Melsungen. Germany) is a short acting IV anesthetic agent used for the induction of general anesthesia. It was introduced as an IV agent in 1972 in Europe and in 1983 in United States. It has a rapid onset of action, a safe cardiovascular risk profile, and lack of histamine release and therefore is less likely to cause a significant drop in BP than other induction agents. It is an ideal induction agent for patients who are hemodynamically unstable. The normal adult serum cortisol levels are 5–25 mcg/dl. Etomidate suppresses corticosteroid synthesis in the adrenal cortex by reversibly inhibiting 11-beta-hydroxylase, an enzyme important in adrenal steroid production leading to primary adrenal suppression. The cortisol suppression induced by a single dose of etomidate is almost always limited to 24 h, and therefore does not pose any threat of prolonged adrenocortical suppression. The cortisol levels in our study also returned to normal levels at 24 h postinduction with etomidate. Propofol is a short-acting, intravenously administered hypnotic agent. Propofol has been proposed to have several mechanisms of action, both through potentiation of GABA receptor activity, thereby slowing the channel-closing time, and also acting as a sodium channel blocker. Recent research has also suggested that the endocannabinoid system may contribute significantly to propofol's anesthetic action and to its unique properties. Propofol causes vasodilatation and may result in transient fall in systemic BP. Various studies have shown stable cardiovascular profile of etomidate like studies by Gooding et al., Sun (1991), Yunqi et al., Hosten et al., Pandey et al. Some other authors have found propofol to be effective in patients with good LV function and combined with some analgesic as shown in the studies by Patrick et al., Stephan et al., Vermeyen et al., Kaplan et al.

Selection of dose for etomidate and propofol induction

Following authors have used different dosages of propofol and etomidate for induction in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery [Table 12]. Based on above studies, we selected an induction dose of 2 mg/kg for propofol and 0.2 mg/kg for Etomidate for our study.

CONCLUSION

Etomidate provides more stable hemodynamic parameters when used for induction of anesthesia as compared to propofol in patients with poor LV function There is a rise in serum Cortisol levels on the initiation of CPB after induction of anesthesia with propofol in our study. This was not present in the etomidate group, where the serum Cortisol levels reduced. Serum Cortisol levels returned to near normal range at 24 h without any untoward effects. The values though were almost twice the baseline" Etomidate can therefore be safely used as an anesthetic induction agent in patients with poor LV function for CABG/MVR/AVR on CPB without serious cortisol suppression lasting more than 24 h No untoward incidence was seen with either etomidate or propofol induction.
Table 2

Baseline hemodynamic parameters between the two groups

Baseline parametersGroup I (n=30)Group II (n=30)P
HR91.03±20.780.66±23.530.0714
SBP117.63±15.66111.56±16.0050.143
DBP73.93±11.4172.5±8.160.586
MAP88.38±12.0185.08±10.500.2619
CVP6.73±1.387.43±1.470.062
PCWP6.63±1.658.86±1.19<0.001*
CO4.35±0.764.06±0.650.117
CI2.41±0.422.26±0.380.15
SVR1889.4±396.11798.4±310.210.32
PVR141.66±30.4155.4±30.30.08

Values expressed as mean±SD. *P<0.05 considered significant statistically. HR: Heart rate, SBP: Systolic blood pressure, DBP: Diastolic blood pressure, MAP: Mean arterial pressure, CVP: Central venous pressure, PCWP: Pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, CO: Cardiac output, CI: Cardiac index, SVR: Systemic vascular resistance, PVR: Peripheral vascular resistance, SD: Standard deviation

Table 3

Hemodynamic responses between the two groups

Group I (P) (n=30)Group II (E) (n=30)P
HR
 Baseline91.03±2.0780.66±23.530.0714
 After induction88.53±18.2080.6±12.920.056
 After intubation96.93±20.3485.83±23.530.0501
 5 min after intubation92.8±14.9187.46±10.990.119
SBP
 Baseline117.63±15.66111.56±16.0050.143
 After induction80.63±8.6398.5±14.73<0.001*
 After intubation86.53±15.65103.4±12.286<0.001*
 5 min after induction95.86±3.51103.7±6.22<0.001*
DBP
 Baseline73.93±11.4172.53±8.160.586
 After induction59.7±7.2869.4±8.260.007*
 After intubation64.6±6.4671.43±7.370.0015*
 5 min after intubation66.6±4.4171.26±4.830.0003*
MAP
 Baseline88.38±12.0185.08±10.500.261
 After induction67.97±5.7980.54±9.39<0.001*
 After intubation72.79±5.5482.07±7.09<0.001*
 5 min after intubation76.46±3.4782.05±3.92<0.001*

Values expressed as mean±SD. *P<0.05 considered significant statistically. HR: Heart rate, SBP: Systolic blood pressure, DBP: Diastolic blood pressure, MAP: Mean arterial pressure, SD: Standard deviation

Table 4

CVP comparison between two groups

Group P (n=30)Group E (n=30)P
Baseline6.73±1.387.43±1.470.062
After induction6.60±1.107.23±1.380.0554
After intubation7.86±0.937.4±1.240.109
5 min after intubation7.63±1.097.4±1.060.418

Values expressed as mean±SD. *P<0.05 considered significant statistically. CVP: Central venous pressure, SD: Standard deviation

Table 5

Pulmonary capillary wedge pressure

PCWPGroup P (n=30)Group E (n=30)P
Baseline7.43±1.389.06±1.57<0.001*
After induction6.63±1.658.86±1.19<0.001*
After intubation8.6±1.679.16±1.640.195
5 min after intubation8.76±1.139.06±1.250.38

Values expressed as mean±SD. *P<0.05 considered significant statistically. PCWP: Pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, SD: Standard deviation

Table 6

Cardiac output

COGroup P (n=30)Group E (n=30)P
Baseline4.35±0.764.06±0.650.117
After induction3.72±0.743.88±0.70.393
After intubation3.85±0.683.91±0.560.71
5 min after intubation3.87±0.603.8±0.50.625

Values expressed as mean±SD. *P<0.05 considered significant statistically. CO: Cardiac output, SD: Standard deviation

Table 7

Cardiac index

CIGroup P (n=30)Group E (n=30)P
Baseline2.41±0.422.26±0.380.15
After induction2.06±0.412.15±0.320.38
After intubation2.13±0.372.17±0.310.65
5 min after intubation2.14±0.332.10±0.280.61

Values expressed as mean±SD. *P<0.05 considered significant statistically. CI: Cardiac index, SD: Standard deviation

Table 8

Systemic vascular resistance

Group P (n=30)Group E (n=30)P
Baseline1889.4±396.11798.4±310.210.32
After induction1587.267±123.531613.5±369.50.71
After intubation1822.56±130.0111733.133±293.90.132
5 min after intubation1604.3±142.451920.2±259.09<0.001*

Values expressed as mean±SD. *P<0.05 considered significant statistically. SVR: Systemic vascular resistance, SD: Standard deviation

Table 9

Pulmonary vascular resistance between two groups

Group P (n=30)Group E (n=30)P
Baseline141.66±30.4155.4±30.30.08
After induction125.46±25.12138.5±25.90.052
After intubation140.5±21.48147.8±16.650.146
5 min after intubation136.63±18.6144.7±13.50.059

Values expressed as mean±SD. *P<0.05 considered significant statistically. PVR: Pulmonary vascular resistance, SD: Standard deviation

Table 10

Serum cortisol and blood glucose values between two groups

Group P (n=30)Group E (n=30)P
Serum cortisol values
 Baseline/before induction11.7±1.9512.2±2.940.44
 During bypass14.8±1.629.36±3.04<0.001*
 After bypass/after protamine reversal of heparin23.26±3.147.66±2.91<0.001*
 At 24 h postoperatively28.3±2.9724.23±3.62<0.001*
Blood glucose levels
 Baseline97.43±15.6693.83±15.90.380
 During bypass158.03±38.62138.53±33.50.041*
 After protamine reversal/weaning off CPB159.03±39.91136.9±35.240.0265*
 At 24 h postoperatively106.06±28.1598.86±15.90.227

Values expressed as mean±SD. *P<0.05 considered significant statistically. SD: Standard deviation, CPB: Cardiopulmonary bypass

Table 11

Associated adverse outcomes between two groups

Adverse reactionsGroup PGroup E
Postoperative nausea and vomitingNoneNone
Allergic reactionNoneNone
Excitatory effects like myoclonus, dystocia or tremorNoneNone
Adrenal depressionNoneNone
Pain on injectionNoneNone
Hypotension perioperativelyNone requiringNone requiring
vasopressor supportvasopressor support
  14 in total

1.  Effect of propofol on peripheral vascular resistance during cardiopulmonary bypass.

Authors:  F Boer; P Ros; J G Bovill; P van Brummelen; J van der Krogt
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 9.166

2.  Effect of thiopentone, etomidate and propofol on systemic vascular resistance during cardiopulmonary bypass.

Authors:  F Boer; J G Bovill; P Ros; H van Ommen
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 9.166

3.  Sympathetic responses to induction of anesthesia in humans with propofol or etomidate.

Authors:  T J Ebert; M Muzi; R Berens; D Goff; J P Kampine
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 7.892

4.  Comparative hemodynamic effects of propofol and thiamylal sodium during anesthetic induction for myocardial revascularization.

Authors:  J A Kaplan; A V Guffin; S Mikula; J Dolman; J Profeta
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Anesth       Date:  1988-06

5.  Haemodynamic consequences of etomidate administration in elective cardiac surgery: a randomized double-blinded study.

Authors:  J Morel; M Salard; C Castelain; M C Bayon; P Lambert; M Vola; C Auboyer; S Molliex
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2011-06-17       Impact factor: 9.166

6.  Cardiovascular and pulmonary responses following etomidate induction of anesthesia in patients with demonstrated cardiac disease.

Authors:  J M Gooding; J T Weng; R A Smith; G T Berninger; R R Kirby
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1979 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.108

7.  Induction of anaesthesia with etomidate: haemodynamic study of 36 patients.

Authors:  A Criado; J Maseda; E Navarro; A Escarpa; F Avello
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1980-08       Impact factor: 9.166

8.  Comparison of etomidate, ketamine, midazolam, propofol, and thiopental on function and metabolism of isolated hearts.

Authors:  D F Stowe; Z J Bosnjak; J P Kampine
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 5.108

9.  [ST segment changes in the ECG. Anesthesia induction with propofol, etomidate or midazolam in patients with coronary heart disease].

Authors:  V Lischke; S Probst; M Behne; P Kessler
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 1.041

10.  Propofol-fentanyl anaesthesia for coronary bypass surgery in patients with good left ventricular function.

Authors:  K M Vermeyen; F A Erpels; L A Janssen; C P Beeckman; G H Hanegreefs
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 9.166

View more
  13 in total

1.  Etomidate: to use or not to use for endotracheal intubation in the critically ill?

Authors:  Nathan J Smischney; Rahul Kashyap; Ognjen Gajic
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  The All India Difficult Airway Association 2016 guidelines for tracheal intubation in the Intensive Care Unit.

Authors:  Sheila Nainan Myatra; Syed Moied Ahmed; Pankaj Kundra; Rakesh Garg; Venkateswaran Ramkumar; Apeksh Patwa; Amit Shah; Ubaradka S Raveendra; Sumalatha Radhakrishna Shetty; Jeson Rajan Doctor; Dilip K Pawar; Singaravelu Ramesh; Sabyasachi Das; Jigeeshu Vasishtha Divatia
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2016-12

3.  Effect of pretreatment with midazolam on etomidate-induced myoclonus: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chengmao Zhou; Yu Zhu; Zhen Liu; Lin Ruan
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 1.671

4.  Republication: All India Difficult Airway Association 2016 Guidelines for Tracheal Intubation in the Intensive Care Unit.

Authors:  Sheila Nainan Myatra; Syed Moied Ahmed; Pankaj Kundra; Rakesh Garg; Venkateswaran Ramkumar; Apeksh Patwa; Amit Shah; Ubaradka S Raveendra; Sumalatha Radhakrishna Shetty; Jeson Rajan Doctor; Dilip K Pawar; Singaravelu Ramesh; Sabyasachi Das; Jigeeshu Vasishtha Divatia
Journal:  Indian J Crit Care Med       Date:  2017-03

5.  Assessment of adrenal reserve and secretion of cortisol in patients over 60 years of age undergoing cardiac surgery.

Authors:  Magda L Piekarska; Marta Buda; Marek A Deja
Journal:  Kardiochir Torakochirurgia Pol       Date:  2019-10-28

6.  Anaesthetic management in endovascular total aortic arch repair via needle-based in situ fenestration: a case series of 14 patients.

Authors:  Kui-Rong Wang; Min Gao; Xiao-Hong Wen; Hai-Ying Kong
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2019-12-26       Impact factor: 1.671

7.  Comparing Hemodynamic Responses to Diazepam, Propofol and Etomidate During Anesthesia Induction in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: a Double-blind, Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Aria Soleimani; Neda Heidari; Mohammad Reza Habibi; Farshad Hasanzadeh Kiabi; Mohammad Khademloo; Amir Emami Zeydi; Fatemeh Bozorg Sohrabi
Journal:  Med Arch       Date:  2017-06

8.  A randomized clinical trial comparing hemodynamic responses to ketamine-propofol combination (ketofol) versus etomidate during anesthesia induction in patients with left ventricular dysfunction undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

Authors:  Afshin Gholipour Baradari; Abbas Alipour; Mohammad Reza Habibi; Sajedeh Rashidaei; Amir Emami Zeydi
Journal:  Arch Med Sci       Date:  2016-10-25       Impact factor: 3.318

9.  Effects of propofol and etomidate anesthesia on cardiovascular miRNA expression: the different profiles?

Authors:  Youxiu Yao; Ning Yang; Dengyang Han; Cheng Ni; Changyi Wu; Xiangyang Guo
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 2.217

10.  Impact of Sevoflurane Versus Propofol Anesthesia on Post-Operative Cognitive Dysfunction in Elderly Cancer Patients: A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Liang Guo; Fei Lin; Huijun Dai; Xueke Du; Meigang Yu; Jinxi Zhang; Huimei Huang; Wanyun Ge; Guanghua Tao; Linghui Pan
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2020-02-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.