2019, Vol. 2, Issue 2, Part D
Etomidate and Ketofol as induction agents: A comparative study of haemodynamic parameters
Author(s): Dr. Jose B Cherayath and Dr. Jitin George
Abstract: Background: For treating a variety of psychiatric disorders, Electroconvulsive therapy is a widely used and safe evidence. Hemodynamic effects, seizure activity, cognitive functions determine the choice of anaesthetic agents.
Aim: The present study evaluates and compares the effects of protocol and Etomidate on recovery pattern, hemodynamic effects and activity of seizures in patients undergoing electroconvulsive therapy.
Materials and Methods: The present study is a single blinded randomised controlled study which was conducted in 100 patients undergoing ECT in the age group of 20 to 65 years of either sex were selected consecutively and randomly divided into two groups namely group A which consisted of 50 patients who received Ketofol (propofol 1mg/kg + ketamine 0.5mg/kg) and group B which consisted of 50 patients who received etomidate (0.2 mg/kg body weight).
Results: Comparison of the mean systolic blood pressure, mean diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial blood pressure in the study group was not statistically significant. Seizure duration in the study group showed statistically significant differences. Induction of high quality and longer seizures observed in etomidate group. Ketofol group had a shorter time to return of spontaneous respiration, time to eye opening on command and time to respond to verbal commands when compared to etomidate group.
Conclusion: Patients who received ketofol had a shorter time to return of spontaneous respiration, time to eye opening on command and time to respond to verbal commands when compared to patients who received etomidate.
Pages: 250-252 | Views: 1473 | Downloads: 762
Download Full Article: Click Here
How to cite this article:
Dr. Jose B Cherayath, Dr. Jitin George. Etomidate and Ketofol as induction agents: A comparative study of haemodynamic parameters. Int J Med Anesthesiology 2019;2(2):250-252. DOI: 10.33545/26643766.2019.v2.i2d.59