Hemodynamic Stability, Patient Acceptance and Cost of Intravenous Propofol and Inhalational Sevoflurane for Induction of Anaesthesia: A Prospective, Randomized Comparative Study.

Introduction The effects of an anesthetic agent on the hemodynamic stability are of prime importance in patients with compromised hemodynamics. Although comparative studies of sevoflurane and propofol are reported, most of these are aimed to assess maintenance and early postoperative recovery. There are very few studies on hemodynamic changes occurring with these two agents. This study compares the hemodynamic stability, patient acceptance, and cost of intravenous (IV) propofol versus inhalational (IH) sevoflurane for the induction of anesthesia. Methods This prospective, randomized comparative study was conducted among 80 patients with American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade-I requiring general anesthesia (GA) for elective surgical procedures. The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee and was conducted as per the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines. Enrolled patients were randomized to receive either intravenous (IV) propofol 2 mg/kg (n=40) or gradual inhalational (IH) induction with sevoflurane (n=40). All patients were maintained with sevoflurane 2% in 67% nitrous oxide (NO) and O. Hemodynamic parameters like pulse rate and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were monitored every minute up to five minutes. Patients' acceptance was assessed on a 10-item questionnaire, and the cost of anesthesia was assessed based on the anesthetic requirement. The hemodynamic parameters were compared between the two groups using two-way repeat-measures ANOVA. The incidence of hypotension was compared using Fischer's test.  Results The two groups were similar at baseline with respect to the demography and other baseline characteristics. There was greater (p<0.05) fall in MAP with propofol induction (28.48%) compared to sevoflurane (14.61%). Greater reduction in pulse rate (p<0.05) with sevoflurane (9.18) induction was observed compared to propofol (5.28). Patient acceptance for both drugs was similar (p>0.05). Although sevoflurane was unpleasant, propofol injection was painful. Ninety percent of patients preferred propofol for repeat anesthesia as against 85% of patients with sevoflurane. Considering the quantity of anesthetic consumed and the unit cost, propofol was more costly as compared to sevoflurane. Conclusion Sevoflurane maintains better hemodynamic stability compared to propofol, and patient acceptance of both drugs is similar. Induction with sevoflurane was found to be cheaper as compared to propofol induction.