Background: Propofol may result in hypotension and respiratory depression, while etomidate is considered to be a safe induction agent for haemodynamically unstable patients because of its low risk of hypotension. We hypothesized that etomidate anesthesia during ERCP caused more stable haemodynamic responses compared with propofol. The primary endpoint was to compare the haemodynamic effects of etomidate vs. propofol in ERCP cases. The secondary endpoint was overall survival.
Methods: A total of 80 patients undergoing ERCP were randomly assigned to an etomidate or propofol group. Patients in the etomidate group received etomidate induction and maintenance during ERCP, and patients in the propofol group received propofol induction and maintenance. Cardiovascular parameters and procedure-related time were measured and recorded during ERCP.
Results: The average percent change to baseline in MBP was -8.4±7.8 and -14.4±9.4 with P = 0.002, and in HR was 1.8±16.6 and 2.4±16.3 with P = 0.874 in the etomidate group and the propofol group, respectively. MBP values in the etomidate group decreased significantly less than those in the propofol group (P<0.05). The ERCP duration and recovery time in both groups was similar. There was no significant difference in the survival rates between groups ( p = 0.942).
Conclusions: Etomidate anesthesia during ERCP caused more stable haemodynamic responses compared with propofol.
Keywords: Etomidate anesthesia; propofol.