Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2015 Jul-Sep;18(3):306-11.
doi: 10.4103/0971-9784.159798.

Cardioversion: What to choose? Etomidate or propofol

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Cardioversion: What to choose? Etomidate or propofol

Pushkar M Desai et al. Ann Card Anaesth. 2015 Jul-Sep.

Abstract

Context: Electrical cardioversion is a short painful procedure to regain normal sinus rhythm requiring anaesthesia for haemodynamic stability, sedation, analgesia and early recovery.

Aims: To compare propofol and etomidate as sedatives during cardioversion.

Settings and design: Single centred, prospective and randomized single blind study comprising 60 patients.

Subjects and methods: Patients more than 18 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists I/II/III grades undergoing elective cardioversion, randomly divided to receive propofol 1 mg/kg intravenous (IV) bolus followed by 0.5 mg/kg (Group P, n = 30) or etomidate (Group E, n = 30) 0.1 mg/kg followed by 0.05 mg/kg. All patients received IV fentanyl (1 μg/kg) before procedure. Heart rate, blood pressure (BP) (systolic BP [SBP], diastolic BP [DBP], mean arterial pressure), respiratory rate, Aldrete recovery score (ARS) and Ramsay sedation score (RSS) were assessed at 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 min post cardioversion. Incidence of hypotension, respiratory depression and side effects were compared.

Statistical analysis used: Student's unpaired t-test, Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney test. P < 0.05 was taken as significant.

Results: Group P showed significant fall in SBP, DBP, and mean BP at 2 min after cardioversion. Hypotension (33.3% Group P vs. 16.65% Group E) occurred more with propofol (P < 0.05). Group E showed better ARS at 1, 2, 5, 10, 15 and 20 min. Time required to attain RSS = 2 (659.1 s Group P and 435.7 s Group E) indicated longer recovery with propofol. Left atrial size (35.5-42.5 mm) did not affect success rate of cardioversion (80% Group P vs. 83.3% Group E). Incidence of myoclonus (Group E 26.67% vs. Group P 0%) showed significant difference.

Conclusions: Etomidate/fentanyl is superior over propofol/fentanyl during cardioversion for quick recovery and haemodynamic stability.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Comparison of heart rate (no difference noted)
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of systolic blood pressure (P = 0.004 at 2 min; P = 0.035 at 5 min)
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.032 at 2 min)
Figure 4
Figure 4
Comparison of mean blood pressure (P = 0.017 at 2 min)
Figure 5
Figure 5
Comparison of Ramsay sedation score (P < 0.05 at 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 min denoting profound sedation with propofol)
Figure 6
Figure 6
Comparison of Aldrete recovery score (etomidate showing better recovery at all times)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Clark A, Cotter L. DC cardioversion. Br J Hosp Med. 1991;46:114–5. - PubMed
    1. Morani G, Bergamini C, Angheben C, Pozzani L, Cicoira M, Tomasi L, et al. General anaesthesia for external electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: Experience of an exclusively cardiological procedural management. Europace. 2010;12:1558–63. - PubMed
    1. Wood J, Ferguson C. Best evidence topic report. Procedural sedation for cardioversion. Emerg Med J. 2006;23:932–4. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hagemeijer F, Van Mechelen R, Smalbraak DW. Fentanyl-etomidate anesthesia for cardioversion. Eur Heart J. 1982;3:155–8. - PubMed
    1. Bruder EA, Ball IM, Ridi S, Pickett W, Hohl C. Single induction dose of etomidate versus other induction agents for endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;1:CD010225. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources