• S L Zettervall, S Sirajuddin, S Akst, C Valdez, C Golshani, R L Amdur, B Sarani, and J R Dunne.
• Department of Surgery, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 2150 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 6B, Washington, DC, 20037, USA, slzettervall@gmail.com.
• Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2015 Aug 1; 41 (4): 405-11.

PurposeEtomidate is a commonly used agent for rapid sequence induction (RSI) in trauma due to its limited hemodynamic effects. Given a recent nationwide shortage of etomidate, alternative induction agents may be required. Propofol is a frequent substitute; however, concern exists regarding its potential hypotensive effects. The study attempts to determine the hemodynamic effects of propofol and etomidate following RSI in trauma bay.MethodsA retrospective study was performed on 76 consecutive trauma patients requiring RSI at a single academic medical center. Patients were stratified by age, gender, mechanism of injury, Injury Severity Score (ISS), and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). Pre-induction and post-induction hemodynamic parameters were evaluated, and a multivariate regression analysis was performed.ResultsThe mean age was 42, ISS was 13, and GCS was 9.8. The mean dose of propofol was 127 ± 5 mg and the mean dose of etomidate was 21 ± 6 mg. Patients who received propofol were younger and had a lower ISS. The etomidate group had significantly increased post-induction systolic blood pressure but no difference in mean arterial pressure or heart rate when compared to pre-induction parameters. The propofol group had no significant changes in any post-induction parameter compared to pre-induction parameter.ConclusionRSI with propofol did not result in hypotension in our patient population, suggesting that a reduced dose of propofol may represent a reasonable alternative to etomidate in hemodynamically stable trauma patient. Further research is warranted to assess the safety of propofol in the acutely injured patient.

34 keywords...

hide…