Comparison of ICI 35868, etomidate and methohexitone for day-case anaesthesia

Medical suppression of hypercortisolemia in Cushing's syndrome with particular consideration of etomidate

Cushing's syndrome is associated with excessive cortisol secretion by the adrenal gland or ectopic tumours and may result in diabetes, hypertension, and life-threatening infections with high mortality rates especially in the case of surgical resection. Although surgical resection is the treatment of choice, patients may benefit from preceding medical therapy. This may especially be useful as an adjunctive approach in emergency settings, if patients cannot undergo surgery, if surgery or radiotherapy fails, or if the tumour recurs. Medical therapy can be categorized in three different groups-inhibition of steroidogenesis, suppression of adrenocorticotropic hormone, and antagonism of the glucocorticoid receptor. However, the majority of common drugs are not available for parenteral administration, which may evoke a management problem in emergency settings or in patients unable to tolerate oral medication. The carboxylated imidazole etomidate is a well known parenteral induction agent for general anaesthesia. Besides its hypnotic properties, etomidate also has α-adrenergic characteristics and inhibits the enzyme 11-deoxycortisol ß-hydroxylase, which catalyzes the final step of the conversion of cholesterol to cortisol. Adverse outcomes have been reported when used for sedation in septic or trauma patients probably by its interference with steroid homeostasis. However, its capability of inhibition of the 11-deoxycortisol ß-hydroxylase leads to suppression of cortisol secretion which has been demonstrated to be a useful tool in severe and complicated hypercortisolemia. Within this article, we review the data concerning different pharmacological approaches with particular consideration of etomidate in order to suppress steroidogenesis in patients with Cushing's syndrome.

Propofol and methohexital have no significant effect on mucus secretion or clearance in the anesthetized dog

OBJECTIVE

Anecdotal reports suggest that propofol (Diprivan) may stimulate mucus hypersecretion in patients without pulmonary disease. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of methohexital or propofol anesthesia on the physical and transport properties of airway mucus in spontaneously breathing dogs.

DESIGN

Randomized, controlled, crossover laboratory study.

SETTING

University laboratory.

SUBJECTS

Four healthy, purpose-bred female beagle dogs.

INTERVENTIONS

Dogs were anesthetized with 5 mg/kg of propofol by intravenous bolus followed by a maintenance infusion at 0.4 mg x kg(-1) x min(-1) or 4 mg/kg of methohexital followed by an infusion at 0.3 mg x kg(-1) x min(-1). Premedication with 0.05 mg/kg of acepromazine was given, and either atropine (0.2 mg) or saline was given by intravenous bolus at the time of induction. Dogs were intubated but spontaneously breathing throughout the experiment. Tracheal secretions were collected after induction and again after 40 mins.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The volume of secretions collected on the endotracheal tube during the 1.5-hr experiment and on a bronchoscopy brush over 10 mins during the experiment was measured. Tracheal epithelial potential difference was measured bronchoscopically by saturated agar bridges, and tracheal mucus transport velocity was determined by timing particle transport. The dynamic viscoelasticity of collected mucus was assessed by microrheometry, and secretion mucociliary transportability was measured in vitro. There were no differences in any physical or transport properties of airway secretions that could be attributed to the anesthetic agent. Secretion volume was significantly lower (p < .05) and epithelial potential difference was significantly higher (p = .03) with atropine premedication. Despite this, there were no differences in tracheal mucus transport velocity, viscoelasticity, or secretion mucociliary transportability with either anesthetic agent or with atropine.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that neither methohexital nor propofol significantly affects mucus secretion or clearance in healthy dogs.

Evaluation of intubating conditions with rocuronium and either propofol or etomidate for rapid sequence induction

We have assessed the effect of two induction agents on tracheal intubating conditions after rocuronium 0.6 mg.kg-1 in unpremedicated patients undergoing simulated rapid sequence induction. Following pre-oxygenation, anaesthesia was induced with propofol up to 2.5 mg.kg-1 (n = 35) or etomidate 0.3 mg.kg-1 (n = 36), and further increments as required. After loss of verbal contact, cricoid pressure was applied and rocuronium was injected. Laryngoscopy was performed at 45 s and intubation attempted at 60 s after rocuronium had been given. Ninety-four per cent of patients in the propofol group had clinically acceptable (good or excellent) intubating conditions compared to only 75% in the etomidate group (p = 0.025). Owing to coughing, one patient in the etomidate group could not be intubated on the first attempt. A greater pressor response also followed intubation after induction with etomidate. We conclude that etomidate and rocuronium alone cannot be recommended for intubation at 60 s under rapid sequence induction conditions.

A review of etomidate for rapid sequence intubation in the emergency department

Currently, there is no one drug that is the agent of choice for induction in rapid sequence intubation in the emergency department (ED). All agents currently used as induction agents in the ED offer distinct advantages for various clinical conditions, but each has a significant side effect profile and specific contraindications that limit its use in many common clinical settings. A review of the data available from the anesthesia literature suggests that etomidate possesses many properties that may make it the agent of choice for rapid sequence intubations in the ED. These advantages include excellent pharmacodynamics, protection from myocardial and cerebral ischemia, minimal histamine release, and a hemodynamic profile that is uniquely stable. Disadvantages include a lack of blunting of sympathetic response to intubation, a high incidence of myoclonus, prominent nausea and vomiting, potential activation of seizures in patients with epileptogenic foci, and impaired glucocorticoid response to stress. Further studies are needed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the use of etomidate for rapid sequence intubation in the ED.

Comparative evaluation of propofol and thiopentone for total intravenous anaesthesia

Sixty unpremedicated ASA physical status I or II patients scheduled for surgical procedures of intermediate duration (15 to 60 min) were studied to evaluate the safety and efficacy of propofol, to measure recovery times and to compare the return of psychomotor and cognitive function with thiopentone. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups. Anaesthesia was induced and maintained by either propofol (2.0-2.5 mg.kg-1 followed by a continuous infusion 0.1-0.2 mg.kg-1.min-1) or thiopentone (4.0-5.0 mg.kg-1, and infusion rate 0.16-0.32 mg.kg-1.min-1), titrated to patient response. Succinylcholine was administered to facilitate tracheal intubation and maintain neuromuscular blockade. Induction of anaesthesia was slightly longer with propofol than thiopentone (42.2 vs 29.8 sec) and was smooth with both drugs. Post-intubation increases in heart rate, and systolic and diastolic blood pressures were attenuated by propofol when compared with thiopentone. After the administration of propofol, times to eye opening (6.4 +/- 4.3 vs 13.9 +/- 15.9 min), response to verbal command (7.6 +/- 6.3 vs 15.4 +/- 16.6 min) and orientation (22.7 +/- 12.8 vs 36.2 +/- 23.1 min), were significantly shorter. Psychomotor and cognitive function returned earlier with propofol and fewer side effects were noted. At 24 hr there was no distinguishable difference between groups. Propofol is a safe anaesthetic agent with the potential for early patient discharge and street fitness after outpatient procedures.

Comparison between propofol and thiopentone for induction of anaesthesia in children

Propofol 2.5 mg/kg was compared with thiopentone 5 mg/kg in a randomised open study, as an induction agent in paediatric anaesthesia. One hundred and twenty children who were to undergo elective surgery were included in the study. Both propofol and thiopentone produced a rapid and smooth induction with a low incidence of side effects. A similar decrease (10%) in mean arterial pressure was observed with both agents, but propofol showed better suppression of the haemodynamic response to tracheal intubation. Respiratory upsets occurred less frequently with propofol than with thiopentone, but propofol frequently induced discomfort on injection. Both agents provided satisfactory and controllable induction of anesthesia and no major adverse reactions occurred during or after anaesthesia. We conclude that propofol is a useful alternative as an induction agent in children.

A controlled investigation of propofol, thiopentone and methohexitone

This was a randomized study of 180 ASA physical status I and II patients, 60 in each group who received propofol (PROP), 2.5 mg . kg-1, thiopentone (THIO), 4 mg . kg-1, or methohexitone (METH), 1.5 mg . kg-1. Control values, followed by changes after induction and during a 3-min delay before intubation were recorded for the following parameters: heart rate (HR), systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP, DBP), respiratory rate (RR), end-tidal CO2 (PETCO2), and induction time (IT). In addition, the incidence of adverse reactions and time for recovery from anaesthesia were noted. The IT (mean +/- SE) was 35 +/- 1 sec for propofol, 35 +/- 1.2 sec for thiopentone and 34 +/- 1.4 sec for methohexitone. Ninety-three per cent of the PROP group fell asleep with one dose and required no additional doses. Fifty per cent of each of the THIO and METH groups required additional agents (p less than 0.05). METH was associated with the highest elevation in HR, PROP the least (p less than 0.05). PROP was associated with the most decrease in SBP and DBP and in addition respiratory depression (p less than 0.05). The incidence of injection pain or excitatory activity was equal in the three groups with the exception that 14 patients who received METH developed hiccoughs while none did in the other groups. PROP was associated with the most rapid recovery, particularly with respect to the orientation time. We conclude that PROP is an effective alternative to barbiturate induction and that the published recommended doses of THIO and METH are often ineffective.

Anaesthesia for laparoscopy. A comparison of five techniques including propofol, etomidate, thiopentone and isoflurane

This is a report about five anaesthetic techniques for laparoscopy. Propofol and etomidate were used for total intravenous anaesthesia. Propofol, etomidate and thiopentone were used as induction agents prior to inhalational anaesthesia with isoflurane and nitrous oxide. Fentanyl was used for analgesia. Induction with propofol and thiopentone was rapid. Etomidate induction was characterised by myoclonus. Maintenance was smooth with inhalational anaesthesia. Of the groups that received total intravenous anaesthesia, propofol provided stable anaesthesia but required extra bolus doses. Recovery was the most rapid following total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol. Postoperative side effects were much lower after propofol. No difference was observed between the groups with regard to changes in arterial blood pressure and heart rate.

A comparison of propofol and thiopentone as induction agents in outpatient surgery

We studied 90 healthy ASA physical status I or II female patients scheduled for outpatient therapeutic abortions. Sixty patients received induction doses of propofol (2.5 mg X kg-1) and 30 patients received thiopentone (4 mg X kg-1). Anaesthesia was maintained with nitrous oxide plus additional doses of the agent used for induction. Comparisons were made regarding the efficacy of induction and maintenance, rapidity of recovery, haemodynamic and respiratory variables and side effects. The number of "excellent" inductions was significantly different (p = 0.02), with 97 per cent of the patients induced with propofol and 80 per cent of the patients induced with thiopentone receiving this rating. A larger number of patients receiving propofol exhibited minor extraneous muscular movement during induction (p = 0.01). Recovery for the propofol group was significantly more rapid than with the thiopentone group (p = 0.001). The respiratory effect of the two drugs was not significantly different. Propofol caused a decrease in pulse rate and a decrease in systolic, diastolic and mean pressure which were significantly greater than with thiopentone. From the observations made we conclude that propofol has the potential to be an excellent induction and maintenance agent for outpatient surgery in combination with nitrous oxide alone.

Propofol vs thiopentone as anaesthetic agents for short operative procedures

In a randomized open study, 120 healthy female patients were included. For short gynaecological procedures they were anaesthetized with either propofol 2.5 mg X kg-1 (n = 60) or thiopentone 5 mg X kg-1 (n = 60) in combination with nitrous oxide/oxygen (67%/33%). Supplementary doses of propofol (10-20 mg) or thiopentone (25-50 mg) were given when necessary during the procedure. Induction characteristics for propofol and thiopentone 1 min after start of induction were similar. Propofol seemed to have a more depressant effect than thiopentone on the circulatory response to anaesthesia. Recovery times from the end of the operative procedure until the patients opened their eyes on command and were orientated were shorter in the propofol patients compared to the thiopentone patients. In the propofol group, patients recalled discomfort on injection more often than patients anaesthetized with thiopentone. Otherwise, the side-effects were similar in both groups. We conclude that propofol is similar to thiopentone in its anaesthetic qualities during induction and maintenance of short anaesthetic procedures. Propofol was associated with a more rapid emergence from anaesthesia than thiopentone.

[Propofol versus propanidid for the conduction of suspension laryngoscopy]

Forty patients who where to undergo suspension laryngoscopy were randomly assigned to two groups, the first receiving 1 microgram . kg-1 fentanyl and a bolus of 2.5 mg . kg-1 propofol followed by 5 to 10 mg . kg-1 . h-1 propofol infusion, and the second 1 microgram . kg-1 fentanyl and 0.2 mg . kg-1 flunitrazepam with 8 mg . kg-1 propanidid in a bolus followed by 40 to 50 mg . kg-1 propanidid infusion. The following parameters were studied: length of apnoea, quality of anaesthesia, the time between stopping giving the anaesthetic and the moment when the patient opens the eyes, gives his name and date of birth, the heart rate, the systolic, diastolic and mean blood pressures, blood gases, before induction, during suspension and at stopping the infusion. Anaesthetic quality was the same for both protocols, and the variations of the haemodynamic parameters were very similar for both groups. Apnoea lasted twice as long with propofol as with the flunitrazepam-propanidid association (p less than 0.001), whereas recovery was twice as quick (p less than 0.001). This seemed to confirm that propofol is better indicated for this type of surgery than the previously used flunitrazepam-propanidid association.

Comparison of induction characteristics of four intravenous anaesthetic agents

The induction characteristics of thiopentone, etomidate and methohexitone have been compared to those of propofol (2,6 di-isopropyl phenol) in unpremedicated patients. Propofol 2.5 mg/kg caused significantly more hypotension, excitatory side effects and pain on injection at the dorsum of hand than thiopentone 5 mg/kg. However, with regard to the latter two sequelae, etomidate 0.3 mg/kg and methohexitone 1.5 mg/kg caused similar or more frequent upset. Propofol 2.0 mg/kg was equipotent with thiopentone 4.0 mg/kg in terms of successful induction of anaesthesia. Hypotension may contraindicate the use of propofol in the hypovolaemic or unfit patient.