Dai ZL, Cai XT, Gao WL, Lin M, Lin J, Jiang YX, Jiang X. Etomidate vs propofol in coronary heart disease patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery: A randomized clinical trial. World J Clin Cases 2021; 9(6): 1293-1303 [PMID: 33644196 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i6.1293]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Xin Jiang, MD, Doctor, Department of Geriatrics, the First Affiliated Hospital of Southern University, the Second Clinical Medical College of Jinan University, Shenzhen People’s Hospital, No. 1017 Dongmen North Road, Luohu District, Shenzhen 518020, Guangdong Province, China. jiangxinsz@163.com
Research Domain of This Article
Anesthesiology
Article-Type of This Article
Clinical Trials Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Clin Cases. Feb 26, 2021; 9(6): 1293-1303 Published online Feb 26, 2021. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i6.1293
Table 1 Baseline clinical characteristics of the study participants
Propofol group (n = 40)
Etomidate group (n = 40)
P value
Male sex, n (%)
21 (52.5%)
23 (57.5%)
0.651
Age (years), mean ± SD
56.7 ± 6.6
53.6 ± 6.1
0.452
Weight (kg), mean ± SD
64.6 ± 12.5
66.4 ± 16.3
0.084
Height (cm), mean ± SD
165.7 ± 11.9
163.4 ± 13.3
0.732
Type of surgery, n (%)
Gastrointestinal
26 (65.0%)
23 (57.5%)
0.946
Hepatobiliary
8 (20.0%)
10 (25.0%)
0.783
Thyroid
6 (15.0%)
7 (17.5%)
0.562
Table 2 Incidences of cardiovascular events during anesthesia
Propofol group (n = 40)
Etomidate group (n = 40)
P value
Bradycardia, n (%)
11 (27.5%)
3 (7.5%)
0.037
Tachycardia, n (%)
1 (2.5%)
3 (7.5%)
0.615
Hypotension, n (%)
17 (42.5%)
4 (10.0%)
0.027
ST-T segment changes, n (%)
8 (20.0%)
2 (5.0%)
0.029
Ventricular premature beats, n (%)
11 (27.5%)
3 (7.5%)
0.041
Table 3 Comparison of hemodynamic parameters between groups
Before anesthesia induction
3 min after anesthetic injection
Just after tracheal intubation
3 min after tracheal intubation
5 min after tracheal intubation
Heart rate (beats/min)
Propofol group
82.6 ± 9.1
58.9 ± 7.1
66.5 ± 9.7
63.2 ± 6.7
68.9 ± 8.8
Etomidate group
79.0 ± 7.3
71.3 ± 9.3
76.5 ± 6.9
71.3 ± 6.4
76.8 ± 5.2
P value
0.223
0.012
0.044
0.253
0.072
SBP (mmHg)
Propofol group
132.7 ± 12.4
89.4 ± 16.3
100.2 ± 13.1
93.1 ± 17.4
103.8 ± 13.2
Etomidate group
129.6 ± 17.2
100.3 ± 19.3
117.5 ± 12.9
112.3 ± 16.4
121.5 ± 15.3
P value
0.813
0.041
0.112
0.214
0.712
DBP (mmHg)
Propofol group
76.7 ± 18.7
62.9 ± 16.3
72.1 ± 16.7
68.6 ± 17.2
70.9 ± 18.4
Etomidate group
79.0 ± 16.1
73.0 ± 16.4
90.8 ± 20.2
91.2 ± 16.3
82.2 ± 15.4
P value
0.60
0.009
0.008
0.02
0.01
MAP (mmHg)
Propofol group
92.6 ± 18.7
68.9 ± 16.1
76.5 ± 16.5
86.2 ± 18.2
80.8 ± 18.2
Etomidate group
95.1 ± 17.2
80.2 ± 16.7
96.3 ± 22.5
93.5 ± 16.4
89.8 ± 15.5
P value
0.69
0.007
0.043
0.012
0.018
Table 4 Comparison of vasopressor use between groups
Ephedrine use (mg)
Phenylephrine use (μg)
Induction
Maintenance
Induction
Maintenance
Propofol group
7.0 ± 1.6
9.8 ± 3.2
17.5 ± 3.8
15.1 ± 1.6
Etomidate group
3.1 ± 2.0
2.6 ± 1.1
6.2 ± 1.3
7.5 ± 2.1
P value
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
Table 5 Comparison of bispectral index values between groups
Before anesthesia induction
3 min after anesthetic injection
Just after tracheal intubation
3 min after tracheal intubation
5 min after tracheal intubation
Propofol group
97.0 ± 1.7
46.9 ± 2.1
47.5 ± 1.5
46.2 ± 1.2
46.8 ± 1.8
Etomidate group
97.4 ± 1.20
47.2 ± 1.7
46.5 ± 1.5
44.3 ± 1.4
45.0 ± 1.3
P value
0.91
0.29
0.38
0.32
0.43
Citation: Dai ZL, Cai XT, Gao WL, Lin M, Lin J, Jiang YX, Jiang X. Etomidate vs propofol in coronary heart disease patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery: A randomized clinical trial. World J Clin Cases 2021; 9(6): 1293-1303