Ulsamer B, Doenicke A, Laschat M
Anaesthesist. 1986 Sep;35(9):535-42.
In the present study propofol and etomidate were compared with respect to the effects on the cardiovascular system and its side effects in 100 patients ASA grade I-IV. Anaesthesia was induced with 2.2 mg kg-1 body weight propofol. Supplemented with opioids and benzodiazepins the dose diminished to 1.8 mg kg-1 body weight (18.2%). In comparison with etomidate after propofol decrease in blood pressure was more marked, especially when supplemented with opioids and benzodiazepins but without supplementation these values ranged within acceptable limits. Following intubation blood pressure and heart rate after propofol increased only to the base line values contrary to etomidate. Following propofol administration smooth induction with very good ventilation was remarkable. Myocloni and anaphylactoid reactions were not seen. Pain on injection was frequent but thrombosis and phlebitis were not observed. There was a considerably lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting compared with etomidate. The investigators concluded: propofol can be recommended for induction of anaesthesia as an alternative to etomidate.
在本研究中，对100例ASA I-IV级患者比较了丙泊酚和依托咪酯对心血管系统的影响及其副作用。以2.2mg/kg体重的丙泊酚诱导麻醉。补充阿片类药物和苯二氮䓬类药物后，剂量减至1.8mg/kg体重（减少18.2%）。与依托咪酯相比，丙泊酚给药后血压下降更明显，尤其是在补充阿片类药物和苯二氮䓬类药物时，但不补充时这些值在可接受范围内。与依托咪酯相反，丙泊酚诱导插管后血压和心率仅升至基线值。丙泊酚给药后诱导平稳，通气良好，值得注意。未观察到肌阵挛和类过敏反应。注射时疼痛常见，但未观察到血栓形成和静脉炎。与依托咪酯相比，术后恶心和呕吐的发生率明显较低。研究者得出结论：丙泊酚可作为依托咪酯的替代药物推荐用于麻醉诱导。
