A randomised clinical study to compare the haemodynamic effects of etomidate with propofol during induction of general anaesthesia

Background: Induction agents are frequently associated with changes in heart rate and blood pressure and various adverse effects. Since the introduction of general anaesthesia, no ideal induction agent has yet been discovered in term of providing a stable hemodynamic with fewer adverse effects. This prospective randomized clinical study was conducted to compare propofol and etomidate for their effect on hemodynamic and various adverse effects on patients scheduled for elective surgeries during the induction of general anesthesia.Methods: 50 patients of ASA I and II of age group 18-60 years scheduled for elective surgeries under general anaesthesia were randomly assigned in two groups (n=25) receiving etomidate (0.3 mg/kg) in group E and propofol (2.5 mg/kg) in group P as an induction agent. Hemodynamic parameters were recorded at various time intervals. Any adverse effect pain on injection and myoclonus was carefully watched. VAS score was recorded for pain on injection. Statistical analysis was done using software (SPSS IBM version 20). P value was considered significant if (p<0.05).Results: Demographic variables were comparable in both the groups. Hemodynamic parameters at baseline were comparable. There were no statistically significant differences among groups E and P in terms of heart rate (HR) (P>0.05). Patients in propofol group showed significant fall of systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and compared to etomidate (P<0.05).) Pain on injection was more in propofol group (P=0.021), While incidence of myoclonus activity was higher in etomidate group (P=0.0027).Conclusions: Etomidate is a better induction agent over propofol as it provides more hemodynamic stability and less pain on injection as compared to propofol.