Comparison of the effects of etomidate, propofol, and thiopental on respiratory resistance after tracheal intubation

Wendell O. Eames, G. Alec Rooke, Rick Sai Chuen Wu, Michael J. Bishop*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal Article peer-review

153 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: Tracheal intubation frequently results in reversible bronchoconstriction. Propofol has been reported to minimize this response in healthy patients and in asthma patients, but may be unsuitable for hemodynamically unstable patients for whom etomidate may be preferable. The current study examined respiratory resistance after tracheal intubation after induction with either thiopental, etomidate, or propofol. A supratherapeutic dose of etomidate was used to test the hypothesis that the bronchoconstrictive response could be minimized by deep intravenous anesthesia. Methods: Seventy-seven studies were conducted in 75 patients. Anesthesia was induced with either 2.5 mg/kg propofol, 0.4 mg/kg etomidate, or 5 mg/kg thiopental. Respiratory resistance was measured at 2 min after induction. Results: Respiratory resistance at 2 min was 8.1 ± 3.4 cmH 2O · l -1 · s (mean ± SD) for patients receiving propofol versus 11.3 ± 5.3 for patients receiving etomidate and 12.3 ± 7.9 for patients receiving thiopental (P ≤ 0.05 for propofol vs. either etomidate or thiopental). Conclusions: Respiratory resistance after tracheal intubation is lower after induction with propofol than after induction with thiopental or after induction with high-dose etomidate.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1307-1311
Number of pages5
JournalAnesthesiology
Volume84
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 1996

Keywords

  • Anesthetics, intravenous: etomidate; propofol; thiopental
  • Intubation: intratracheal
  • Lungs: bronchial hyperreactivity

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of the effects of etomidate, propofol, and thiopental on respiratory resistance after tracheal intubation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this