It is now a standard practice to induce general anesthesia by using intravenous anaesthetic agent. The propofol was commonly used for induction. The hemodynamic stability during induction is poorly maintained with propofol. Hemodynamic instability during induction can be prevented by using etomidate which maintains hemodynamic stability during induction. Hence in this study we compared etomidate with propofol as induction agents. 60 patients undergoing general anaesthesia were randomly divided into 2 groups to receive the induction agent etomidate, propofol. The hemodynamic parameters namely heart rate, systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure were monitored before induction and after induction every minute for three minutes. There was fall in systolic, diastolic and mean blood pressure after propofol induction. But the fall in blood pressure in propofol group was significant. The propofol induction there is decrease in heart rate. But the change in heart rate was insignificant in both groups. With etomidate induction there is no significant change in heart rate, systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure. Etomidate offers the superior hemodynamic stability during induction. In conclusion etomidate is found to be a better induction agent for general anaesthesia with respect to haemodynamic stability compared to propofol. Etomidate can be an induction agent of choice in patients with comorbid cardiovascular ill ness.

Keywords: Propofol, Etomidate, General anaesthesia, haemodynamics.

1. Miller RD, ed. Anesthesia, 5th ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 2005; 318: 1625 – 28.
2. Stoelting RK. Non-barbiturate Induction Drugs. In Stoeiting RK editors, Pharmacology and Physiology in Anesthetic practice. 3rd edition. Philidelphia, Lippincorr Raven; 1999; 140-57.
3. E. Fairfield, A. Dritsas, R.J.Beale. Hemodynamic effects of propofol. Br. J. anaesth.1991; 67: 618-620.
4. Molly Sarkar, Peter C. Laussen, David Zurakowski. Hemodynamic Responses to Etomidate on Induction of Anesthesia in Pediatric Patients. Anesth Analg 2005; 101:645–50.
5. Reves JG, Glass PSA, David L, Mathew DM. Intravenous Nonopioid Anaesthetics. In: Miller RD, editors. Miller`s Anaesthesia. New York: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone 2005.350-355.
6. Raven Singh: hemodynamic effects of induction of anaesthesia with etomidate, thiopentone, propofol and midazolam. annals of cardiac anaesthesia,vol 13.3 sep-dec-2010.
7. Supriya Aggarwal, Vipin Kumar Goyal et al, a comparative study between propofol and etomidate in patients under general anaesthesia. Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2016:66(3):237-241.
8. A randomized clinical study to compare the hemodynamic effects of etomidate with propofol during induction of general anaesthesia. Khare A et al. Int. J Res Med Sci 2016 Oct.
9. Kaushal Kabir et al, Indian journal of clinical anaesthesia, 2017;4(1);41-45. A prospective study to compare cardiovascular response to laryngoscopy and intubation after induction by propofol and etomidate.
10. Mackenzie N, Grant IS. Comparison of a new emulsion formulation of propofol with methohexitone and thiopentone for induction of anaesthesia in day cases. Br J Anaesth 1985; 57:725-31.
11. A,Gauss, H. Heinrich and O.H.G. Wilder-Smith: Echo cardiograpic assessment of the hemodynamic effects of propofol- a comparison with etomidate and thiopentone. Anaesthesia 1991; 46:99-105.
12. S Jack, M.Shaw, J.M.Harten, K.Anderson. Cardiovascular changes after achieving constant effect site concentration of propofol. Anaesthesia. 2008; 63:116-120.
13. Karliczek: Etomidate-analgesic combinations for the induction of anaesthesia in 150 cardiac patients with coronary artery disease. Anasthesist 1982 ;31(2):51-60.

Gullapalli Hanumantharao

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Mobile no: 9848073707