This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of propofol as an alternative agent for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED) and to make a comparison between two different sedative (propofol vs midazolam) drugs used in combination with fentanyl.
An ideal anaesthetic for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) should have rapid onset and offset with no effect on seizure duration, and provide cardiovascular stability during the procedure. Propofol is commonly used, even though it has been shown to shorten seizure duration which might affect the efficacy of ECT Etomidate has been advocated as an alternative. This prospective, randomised, single-blind, crossover study was conducted to compare the effects of etomidate (Etomidate-Lipuro, B. Braun Ltd, Melsungen, Germany) and propofol (Diprivan, AstraZeneca, UK) on seizure duration as well as haemodynamic parameters in patients undergoing ECT Twenty patients aged between 18 and 70 years were recruited. Group I received etomidate 0.3 mg/kg for the first course of ECT (Group IA) and propofol 1.5 mg/kg for the second ECT (Group IB), while Group II received propofol for the first ECT (Group IIA) and etomidate for the second ECT (Group IIB). There was a washout period of two to three days in between procedures. Parameters recorded included motor seizure duration, electroencephalogram seizure duration, blood pressure and heart rate. Analysis demonstrated neither period effect nor treatment period interaction. Etomidate was associated with a significantly longer motor and electroencephalogram seizure duration compared with propofol (P < 0.01). Neither drug demonstrated consistent effects in suppressing the rise in heart rate or blood pressure during ECT Myoclonus and pain on injection were the most common adverse effects in etomidate group and propofol group respectively. Etomidate is a useful anaesthetic agent for ECT and should be considered in patients with inadequate seizure duration with propofol.
We conducted a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study evaluating the efficacy of prophylactic metaraminol for preventing propofol-induced hypotension. Thirty patients aged 55-75 years undergoing general anaesthesia were randomly allocated to receive either metaraminol 0.5 mg or saline before administration of fentanyl 1 microg.kg(-1) and propofol 2 mg.kg(-1). Induction of anaesthesia was associated with a decrease in mean and systolic arterial pressure in both groups (p = 0.0001). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups. These results show that prophylactic use of metaraminol 0.5 mg does not prevent the decrease in blood pressure following fentanyl and propofol induction in older patients.
The quality of laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation with propofol augmented by alfentanil was investigated as an alternative technique for rapid tracheal intubation. 119 patients aged between 18 and 60 years (ASA 1 and 2) undergoing elective surgery were prospectively studied in a randomized double-blind controlled fashion. Tracheal intubation facilitated by suxamethonium 1.0 mg/kg alfentanil 15 mu g/kg alfentanil 30 mu g/kg or saline control was compared after propofol induction. The quality of laryngoscopy and intubation were graded according to jaw relaxation, ease of insertion of the endotracheal tube and coughing on intubation. Failure to intubate occurred in 4% and 17% with alfentanil 15 mu g/kg and saline control respectively Tracheal intubation was successful in all patients with alfentanil 30 mu g/kg and suxamethonium 1.0 mg/kg. Alfentanil 15 mu g/kg was not statistically significantly different from saline (P = 0.112). Alfentanil 30 mu g/kg provided similar overall intubating conditions (P = 0.5) to suxamethonium 1.0 mg/kg. Alfentanil in both dosages effectively attenuated the haemodynamic responses to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation.