Comparison of arterial hypotension incidence during general anesthesia induction – target-controlled infusion vs. bolus injection of propofol: a randomized clinical trial

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology Pub Date : 2024-04-17 DOI:10.1016/j.bjane.2024.844503
Ana G.G. Vale , Catia S. Govêia , Gabriel M.N. Guimarães , Laíze R. Terra , Luís C.A. Ladeira , Guilherme A. Essado
{"title":"Comparison of arterial hypotension incidence during general anesthesia induction – target-controlled infusion vs. bolus injection of propofol: a randomized clinical trial","authors":"Ana G.G. Vale ,&nbsp;Catia S. Govêia ,&nbsp;Gabriel M.N. Guimarães ,&nbsp;Laíze R. Terra ,&nbsp;Luís C.A. Ladeira ,&nbsp;Guilherme A. Essado","doi":"10.1016/j.bjane.2024.844503","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The incidence of arterial hypotension during induction of general anesthesia is influenced by the method of propofol administration, but there is a dearth of randomized clinical trials comparing bolus injection and target-controlled infusion in relation to arterial hypotension. This study seeks to compare the incidence of arterial hypotension between these two methods of propofol administration.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This prospective, randomized, single-center, non-blinded study included 60 patients (aged 35 to 55 years), classified as ASA physical status I or II, who were undergoing non-cardiac surgeries. They were randomly allocated using a computer to two groups based on the method of propofol administration during the induction of general anesthesia: the Target Group, receiving target-controlled infusion at 4 μg.mL<sup>−1</sup>, and the Bolus Group, receiving a bolus infusion of 2 mg.kg<sup>−1</sup>. Both groups also received midazolam 2 mg, fentanyl 3 μg.kg<sup>−1</sup>, and rocuronium 0.6 mg.kg<sup>−1</sup>. Over the first 10 minutes of anesthesia induction, Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP), Heart Rate (HR), level of Consciousness (qCON), and Suppression Rate (SR) were recorded every 2 minutes.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-seven patients remained in the TCI group, while 28 were in the Bolus group. Repeated measure analysis using mixed-effects models could not reject the null hypothesis for the effect of group-time interactions in MAP (<em>p</em> = 0.85), HR (<em>p</em> = 0.49), SR (<em>p</em> = 0.44), or qCON (<em>p</em> = 0.72). The difference in means for qCON (60.2 for TCI, 50.5 for bolus, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), MAP (90.3 for TCI, 86.2 for bolus, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.006), HR (76.2 for TCI, 76.9 for bolus, <em>p</em> = 0.93), and SR (0.01 for TCI, 5.5 for bolus, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), irrespective of time (whole period means), revealed some significant differences.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Patients who received propofol bolus injection exhibited a lower mean arterial pressure, a greater variation in the level of consciousness, and a higher suppression rate compared to those who received it as a target-controlled infusion. However, the interaction effect between groups and time remains inconclusive.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":32356,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0104001424000253/pdfft?md5=f5db07c12017ce725a202a262a6c0eb1&pid=1-s2.0-S0104001424000253-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0104001424000253","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The incidence of arterial hypotension during induction of general anesthesia is influenced by the method of propofol administration, but there is a dearth of randomized clinical trials comparing bolus injection and target-controlled infusion in relation to arterial hypotension. This study seeks to compare the incidence of arterial hypotension between these two methods of propofol administration.

Methods

This prospective, randomized, single-center, non-blinded study included 60 patients (aged 35 to 55 years), classified as ASA physical status I or II, who were undergoing non-cardiac surgeries. They were randomly allocated using a computer to two groups based on the method of propofol administration during the induction of general anesthesia: the Target Group, receiving target-controlled infusion at 4 μg.mL−1, and the Bolus Group, receiving a bolus infusion of 2 mg.kg−1. Both groups also received midazolam 2 mg, fentanyl 3 μg.kg−1, and rocuronium 0.6 mg.kg−1. Over the first 10 minutes of anesthesia induction, Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP), Heart Rate (HR), level of Consciousness (qCON), and Suppression Rate (SR) were recorded every 2 minutes.

Results

Twenty-seven patients remained in the TCI group, while 28 were in the Bolus group. Repeated measure analysis using mixed-effects models could not reject the null hypothesis for the effect of group-time interactions in MAP (p = 0.85), HR (p = 0.49), SR (p = 0.44), or qCON (p = 0.72). The difference in means for qCON (60.2 for TCI, 50.5 for bolus, p < 0.001), MAP (90.3 for TCI, 86.2 for bolus, p < 0.006), HR (76.2 for TCI, 76.9 for bolus, p = 0.93), and SR (0.01 for TCI, 5.5 for bolus, p < 0.001), irrespective of time (whole period means), revealed some significant differences.

Conclusion

Patients who received propofol bolus injection exhibited a lower mean arterial pressure, a greater variation in the level of consciousness, and a higher suppression rate compared to those who received it as a target-controlled infusion. However, the interaction effect between groups and time remains inconclusive.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
全身麻醉诱导过程中动脉低血压发生率的比较--异丙酚的目标控制输注与栓剂注射:随机临床试验。
背景全身麻醉诱导过程中动脉低血压的发生率受丙泊酚给药方法的影响,但目前缺乏比较栓剂注射和靶控输注与动脉低血压关系的随机临床试验。本研究旨在比较这两种异丙酚给药方法的动脉低血压发生率。方法这项前瞻性、随机、单中心、非盲法研究纳入了 60 名接受非心脏手术的患者(年龄在 35 至 55 岁之间),他们的 ASA 身体状况为 I 级或 II 级。根据全身麻醉诱导过程中丙泊酚的给药方法,他们被随机分配到两组:目标组接受4微克.毫升-1的目标控制输注,博乐组接受2毫克.千克-1的博乐输注。两组患者都接受了 2 毫克咪达唑仑、3 微克芬太尼和 0.6 毫克罗库溴铵。在麻醉诱导的最初 10 分钟内,每 2 分钟记录一次平均动脉压(MAP)、心率(HR)、意识水平(qCON)和抑制率(SR)。使用混合效应模型进行重复测量分析,无法拒绝组间时间交互作用对 MAP(p = 0.85)、HR(p = 0.49)、SR(p = 0.44)或 qCON(p = 0.72)影响的零假设。qCON(TCI 为 60.2,栓剂为 50.5,p < 0.001)、MAP(TCI 为 90.3,栓剂为 86.2,p < 0.006)、HR(TCI 为 76.2,栓剂为 76.9,p = 0.93)和 SR(TCI 为 0.01,栓剂为 5.5,p < 0.001)的平均值差异与时间(整个期间平均值)无关,显示出一些显著差异。结论与接受靶控输注的患者相比,接受异丙酚栓剂注射的患者平均动脉压更低,意识水平变化更大,抑制率更高。但是,组别与时间之间的交互作用仍未得出结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
88
审稿时长
68 days
期刊最新文献
Assessment of superior vena cava diameter and collapsibility index in liver transplantation: a prospective observational study The debate on antifibrinolytics in liver transplantation: always, never, or sometimes? Comparison of propofol-ketamine and propofol-fentanyl combinations for sedation in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized clinical trial Intraoperative hypotension and postoperative delirium in elderly male patients undergoing laryngectomy: a single-center retrospective cohort study The efficacy of buprenorphine compared with dexmedetomidine in spinal anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1