1992•PubMedRequires access

A Comparison Between Etomidate and Methohexital for Anesthesia in ECT.

Anthony L. Kovac, Manuel Pardo

Open publisher page 15 citations

Abstract

Twenty patients were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, open vial, within-patient, crossover design study of methohexital and etomidate anesthesia for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Methohexital (1.0 mg/kg) and etomidate (0.3 mg/kg) were each given for two ECTs. While there were no differences in hemodynamics between the etomidate and methohexital groups, etomidate had a 24% longer mean wakeup time than methohexital. There was no difference between etomidate and methohexital in recovery room stay, induction time, or seizure duration. There was no difference in cardiac rhythms. More patients had pain on injection with etomidate than with methohexital. Increased incidence of pain on injection and a longer initial wakeup time are drawbacks to etomidate, but etomidate compared favorably to methohexital in hemodynamics. Etomidate is an acceptable alternative to methohexital, especially when barbiturates may be contraindicated.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Twenty patients were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, open vial, within-patient, crossover design study of methohexital and etomidate anesthesia for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Methohexital (1.0 mg/kg) and etomidate (0.3 mg/kg) were each given for two ECTs. While there were no differences in hemodynamics between the etomidate and methohexital groups, etomidate had a 24% longer mean wakeup time than methohexital. There was no difference between etomidate and methohexital in recovery room stay, induction time, or seizure duration. There was no difference in cardiac rhythms. More patients had pain on injection with etomidate than with methohexital. Increased incidence of pain on injection and a longer initial wakeup time are drawbacks to etomidate, but etomidate compared favorably to methohexital in hemodynamics. Etomidate is an acceptable alternative to methohexital, especially when barbiturates may be contraindicated.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 15 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Twenty patients were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, open vial, within-patient, crossover design study of methohexital and etomidate anesthesia for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Methohexital (1.0 mg/kg) and etomidate (0.3 mg/kg) were each given for two ECTs. While there were no differences in hemodynamics between the etomidate and methohexital groups, etomidate had a 24% longer mean wakeup time than methohexital. There was no difference between etomidate and methohexital in recovery room stay, induction time, or seizure duration. There was no difference in cardiac rhythms. More patients had pain on injection with etomidate than with methohexital. Increased incidence of pain on injection and a longer initial wakeup time are drawbacks to etomidate, but etomidate compared favorably to methohexital in hemodynamics. Etomidate is an acceptable alternative to methohexital, especially when barbiturates may be contraindicated.

Key concepts: Methohexital, Etomidate, Anesthesia, Medicine, Electroconvulsive therapy, Propofol, Electroconvulsive Shock

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A Comparison Between Etomidate and Methohexital for Anesthesia in ECT. — Research Paper | ScholarLens