a comparative study between propofol and etomidate in patients under general anesthesia
Clicks: 249
ID: 240907
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
249 views
25 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #78 of 139 articles by views in methods in molecular biology (clifton, nj)
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 139 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Induction of anesthesia is a critical part of anesthesia practice. Sudden hypotension, arrhythmias, and cardiovascular collapse are threatening complications following injection of induction agent in hemodynamically unstable patients. It is desirable to use a safe agent with fewer adverse effects for this purpose. Present prospective randomized study is designed to compare propofol and etomidate for their effect on hemodynamics and various adverse effects on patients in general anesthesia. METHODS: Hundred ASA I and II patients of age group 18-60 years scheduled for elective surgical procedure under general anesthesia were randomly divided into two groups of 50 each receiving propofol (2 mg/kg) and etomidate (0.3 mg/kg) as an induction agent. Vital parameters at induction, laryngoscopy and thereafter recorded for comparison. Adverse effect viz. pain on injection, apnea and myoclonus were carefully watched. RESULTS: Demographic variables were comparable in both the groups. Patients in etomidate group showed little change in mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) compared to propofol (p > 0.05) from baseline value. Pain on injection was more in propofol group while myoclonus activity was higher in etomidate group. CONCLUSIONS: This study concludes that etomidate is a better agent for induction than propofol in view of hemodynamic stability and less pain on injection.
| Reference Key |
aggarwal2016revistaa
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Supriya Aggarwal;Vipin Kumar Goyal;Shashi Kala Chaturvedi;Vijay Mathur;Birbal Baj;Alok Kumar |
| Journal | methods in molecular biology (clifton, nj) |
| Year | 2016 |
| DOI |
10.1016/j.bjane.2014.10.005
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.