The American surgeon · 2023
The Effect of Propofol on Peri-Induction Hemodynamics and Resuscitation in Operative Penetrating Trauma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Levin Jeremy H, Wallace Marshall W, Hess T Noel, Beavers Jennifer R, Chang Tony, Beyene Robel T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Hemorrhaging trauma patients may be disproportionately affected by choice of induction agent during rapid sequence intubation (RSI). Etomidate, ketamine, and propofol are safe in the trauma population-at-large but have not been assessed in patients with ongoing hemorrhage. We hypothesize that in hemorrhaging patients with penetrating injury, propofol deleteriously affects peri-induction hypotension compared to etomidate and ketamine.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study. Primary outcome was the effect of induction agent on peri-induction systolic blood pressure. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of peri-induction vasopressor use and quantity of peri-induction blood transfusion requirements. Linear multivariate regression modeling assessed the effect of induction agent on the variables of interest.
RESULTS: 169 patients were included, 146 received propofol and 23 received etomidate or ketamine. Univariate analysis revealed no difference in peri-induction systolic blood pressure (P = .53), peri-induction vasopressor administration (P = .62), or transfusion requirements within the first hour after induction (PRBC P = .24, FFP P = .19, PLT P = .29). Choice of RSI agent did not independently predict peri-induction systolic blood pressure or blood product administration. Rather, only presenting shock index independently predicted peri-induction hypotension.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to directly assess the peri-induction effects of anesthetic induction agent choice in penetrating trauma patients undergoing emergent hemorrhage control surgery. Propofol does not appear to worsen peri-induction hypotension regardless of dose. Patient physiology is most predictive of peri-induction hypotension.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study. Primary outcome was the effect of induction agent on peri-induction systolic blood pressure. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of peri-induction vasopressor use and quantity of peri-induction blood transfusion requirements. Linear multivariate regression modeling assessed the effect of induction agent on the variables of interest.
RESULTS: 169 patients were included, 146 received propofol and 23 received etomidate or ketamine. Univariate analysis revealed no difference in peri-induction systolic blood pressure (P = .53), peri-induction vasopressor administration (P = .62), or transfusion requirements within the first hour after induction (PRBC P = .24, FFP P = .19, PLT P = .29). Choice of RSI agent did not independently predict peri-induction systolic blood pressure or blood product administration. Rather, only presenting shock index independently predicted peri-induction hypotension.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to directly assess the peri-induction effects of anesthetic induction agent choice in penetrating trauma patients undergoing emergent hemorrhage control surgery. Propofol does not appear to worsen peri-induction hypotension regardless of dose. Patient physiology is most predictive of peri-induction hypotension.