Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Less apnoea with etomidate lipuro than with propofol (with a titrated dose regimen) in outpatient anaesthesia

Sowiński, P.; Symonides, M.; Jarosz, J.; Łukaszewska, A.; Pawłowicz, M.

European Journal of Anaesthesiology: 2000 - Volume 17 - Issue - p 14
European Society of Anaesthesiologists; 8th Annual Meeting with the Austrian International Congress; Vienna, Austria, 1-4 April 2000
Free

The Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center-Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland

    Abstract A-47

    Aim: To compare etomidate lipuro and propofol in outpatient anaesthesia.

    Material: 88 patients treated on an outpatient basis divided into two groups; Group I (G.I.: etomidate lipuro) mean age 51.9, SD ± 10.5; Group II (G.II: propofol) mean age 49.5 ± 11.2; all ASA I-II; undergoing minor diagnostic procedures under 30 min duration.

    Method: Standard monitoring: ECG, SaO2, BP every 3 min. After standard intravenous premedication (fentanyl 0.0015 mg kg−1; midazolam 0.015 mg kg−1; atropine 0.01 mg kg−1) a bolus of 0.02 mg kg−1 etomidate lipuro (Etomidate Lipuro BRAUN) was administered in G. I and 1.5 mg kg−1 propofol (Diprivan ASTRA-ZENECA) in G. II. followed by additional titrated doses of 1-2 mg etomidate lipuro or 10-20 mg of propol respectively, the time of administration depending upon the clinical/haemodynamic status of the patient.

    Collected data: Sensations during the initial injection; duration of procedure; amount of drug used; time until recovery (regained consciousness, ability to state name and age); all observed side-effects. The patients were discharged 90 minutes after recovery.

    Results: Group I: duration of procedure 9.6 ± 5.2 min, use of etomidate lipuro 18.1 ± 5.28 mg per procedure, time until full recovery 85.11 ± 72.88 s; fine muscle tremors-three cases (6.8%); in one case (2.3%) apnoea demanding 909 seconds of artificial ventilation was observed after the initial bolus. Two pts (4.5%) experienced pain on injection, no inflammation of the veins was observed; Group II: duration of procedure 9.9 ± 6.3 min; use of propofol 126.05 ± 33.46 mg per procedure, time until recovery 62.8 ± 68.9 s, no fine muscle tremors were observed; in 10 cases (22.5%) after the initial bolus apnoea demanding approx. 60 s of artificial ventilation; 12 of the patients (27%) reported pain on injection. Age I vs. II NS; procedure duration I vs. II NS; recovery time I vs. II NS.

    Conclusion: Etomidate lipuro offers an alternative to propofol in outpatient anaesthesia, there being significantly fewer reports of pain reported on injection and fewer cases of apnoea in the case of etomidate lipuro.

    Section Description

    The abstracts published in this supplement have been typeset from camera-ready copies prepared by the authors. Every effort has been made to reproduce faithfully the abstracts as submitted. However, no responsibility is assumed by the organisers for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. Because of the rapid advances in medical sciences, we recommend that independent verification of diagnoses and drug doses should be made.

    Ambulatory anaesthesia

    © 2000 European Society of Anaesthesiology