Comparison of arterial hypotension incidence during general anesthesia induction – target-controlled infusion vs. bolus injection of propofol: a randomized clinical trial
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 , Catia S. Govêia , Gabriel M.N. Guimarães , Laíze R. Terra , Luís C.A. Ladeira , 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> < 0.001), MAP (90.3 for TCI, 86.2 for bolus, <em>p</em> < 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> < 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":"74 4","pages":"Article 844503"},"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.