1989
DOI: 10.1213/00000539-198907000-00007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hemodynamic and Cardiodynamic Effects of Propofol and Etomidate

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

5
40
0

Year Published

1994
1994
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
5
40
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Arterial blood pressure decreased in all groups after induction of anesthesia. This is consistent with previous experience with propofol inductions in dogs (Brussel et al 1989;Lerche et al 2000;Hofmeister et al 2008). Using indirect blood pressure measurements, it has been demonstrated that dogs receiving a higher target plasma concentration of propofol had a significantly greater incidence of hypotension than dogs receiving a lower target plasma concentration (Musk et al…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Arterial blood pressure decreased in all groups after induction of anesthesia. This is consistent with previous experience with propofol inductions in dogs (Brussel et al 1989;Lerche et al 2000;Hofmeister et al 2008). Using indirect blood pressure measurements, it has been demonstrated that dogs receiving a higher target plasma concentration of propofol had a significantly greater incidence of hypotension than dogs receiving a lower target plasma concentration (Musk et al…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…The best features of this drug include the rapid induction of anesthesia, short duration of action, lack of excitatory side effects on induction and recovery, and no significant cumulative effects on repeated administration (Muir & Gadawski 1998). However, the induction of anesthesia with propofol is often associated with a marked decrease in systemic arterial blood pressure in dogs (Brü ssel et al 1989). Respiratory depression and apnea are reported to be the most consistent and important side effects in animals which received IV propofol (Muir & Gadawski 1998).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Echocardiography revealed adequate function (shortening fraction greater than 28%) in all of our patients and therefore we were comfortable with the use of mivacurium. Although propofol avoids the risks of malignant hyperthermia, it has been shown to adversely affect cardiac output through its negative inotropic properties (Brussel et al 1989). We suggest that alternative means of anaesthetic induction and neuromuscular blockade are indicated in patients with poor cardiac function.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%