Comparison of the Effect of Induction of General Anesthesia with Propofol Vs Ketamine + Midazolam on Perfusion Index in Cardiac Patients Undergoing Non-Cardiac Surgery: General Anesthesia with Propofol Vs Ketamine + Midazolam on Perfusion Index in Cardiac Patients

Muhammad Ashraf Khan; Farrukh Afzal; Sohaib Yousaf; Sheeza Bashir; Sundas Aslam; Majid Farooq; Hafiz Muhammad Umer Mehran

doi:10.54393/pjhs.v7i5.3654

Authors

Muhammad Ashraf Khan Department of Anesthesia, King Edward Medical University, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
Farrukh Afzal Department of Anesthesia, King Edward Medical University, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
Sohaib Yousaf Department of Anesthesia, Fatima Jinnah Medical University, Sir Gangaram Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
Sheeza Bashir Department of Anesthesia, King Edward Medical University, Lady Willingdon Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
Sundas Aslam Department of Anesthesia, King Edward Medical University, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
Majid Farooq Department of Anesthesia, King Edward Medical University, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
Hafiz Muhammad Umer Mehran Department of Anesthesia, Midland Regional Hospital Tullamore, Ireland

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54393/pjhs.v7i5.3654

Keywords:

Cardiac Patients, Ketamine, Midazolam, Propofol, Perfusion Index

Abstract

Hemodynamic stability is a critical concern in cardiac patients. The choice of induction agent significantly influences cardiac output and tissue perfusion. Objectives: To compare the effect of induction with ketamine and midazolam vs. propofol on perfusion index in cardiac patients under general anesthesia. Methods: This quasi-experimental study was done from January 2024 to June 2024 at the Department of Anesthesia, Mayo Hospital, Lahore. Total 146 patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery were included after taking written consent. Patients were assigned to two equal Groups: M (midazolam and ketamine) or Group P (propofol). Outcome parameters, including SBP, MAP, and perfusion index, were recorded pre- and post-induction. Data were collected using a proforma and analyzed with SPSS-26. Results: Post-induction, mean SBP in Group M was higher, 126.02 ± 12.58 mmHg, vs Group P, 120.61 ± 13.09 mmHg, p-value=0.01. Post-induction mean MAP in Group M and P calculated was 74.17 ± 10.06 mmHg, and 71.02 ± 9.82 mmHg, p-value=0.05. Post-induction PI in Group M was also higher, 1.88 ± 0.40, vs Group P, 1.69 ± 0.28, p-value=0.001. Conclusions: Findings of the current study suggest that induction with ketamine and midazolam may lead to increased post-induction mean perfusion index as compared to propofol in cardiac patients. Therefore, assists in maintaining peripheral perfusion in cardiac patients, which could be beneficial for postoperative recovery and minimizing complications.

References

Linassi F and Kreuzer M. General Anesthesia Research. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2020 Jul; 131(1): e13-4. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004824.

Nordine M, Pille M, Kraemer J, Berger C, Brandhorst P, Kaeferstein P et al. Intraoperative Beat-to-Beat Pulse Transit Time (PTT) Monitoring Via Non-Invasive Piezoelectric/Piezocapacitive Peripheral Sensors Can Predict Changes in Invasively Acquired Blood Pressure in High-Risk Surgical Patients. Sensors. 2023 Mar; 23(6): 3304. doi: 10.3390/s23063304.

Russotto V, Tassistro E, Myatra SN, Parotto M, Antolini L, Bauer P et al. Peri-Intubation Cardiovascular Collapse in Patients Who Are Critically Ill: Insights from the INTUBE Study. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2022 Aug; 206(4): 449-58. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202111-2575OC.

Coutrot M, Dudoignon E, Joachim J, Gayat E, Vallee F, Depret F. Perfusion Index: Physical Principles, Physiological Meanings and Clinical Implications in Anesthesia and Critical Care. Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine. 2021 Dec; 40(6): 100964. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2021.100964.

Mostafa H, Shaban M, Hasanin A, Mohamed H, Fathy S, Abdelreheem HM et al. Evaluation of Peripheral Perfusion Index and Heart Rate Variability as Early Predictors for Intradialytic Hypotension in Critically Ill Patients. BioMed Central Anesthesiology. 2019 Dec; 19(1): 242. doi: 10.1186/s12871-019-0917-1.

Vitovskyi AR and Loskutov OA. Changes in Hemodynamic Parameters with Different Anesthesia Induction Agents in Elderly Patients with Coronary Heart Disease. Emergency Medicine. 2024 Dec; 20(7): 594-600. doi: 10.22141/2224-0586.20.7.2024.1778.

Li B, Pop C, Johnson M, Sklar MC, Lawler PR, Elliott AM. Hemodynamic Effects of Propofol. Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Advances. 2025 Aug; 4(8): 101769. doi: 10.1016/j.jacadv.2025.101769.

Goddard K, Sampson C, Ghadban R, Stilley J, Goddard KB, Bedy SM. Effect of Ketamine on Cardiovascular Function During Procedural Sedation of Adults. Cureus. 2021 Mar; 13(3). doi: 10.7759/cureus.14228.

Mihalj M, Karlović Z, Vladić-Spaić D, Matić B, Mikulić I, Mikulić V et al. Effects of Midazolam Co-Induction to General Anesthesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Medicine. 2022 Nov; 101(45): e31400. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000031400.

Uludağ Ö, Doğukan M, Kaya R, Tutak A, Dumlupınar E. Comparison of the Effects of Midazolam-Ketamine or Midazolam-Propofol Combinations on Hemodynamic Stability, Patient Comfort, and Post-Anesthesia Recovery in Children Undergoing Sedation for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Procedures. Ain-Shams Journal of Anesthesiology. 2020 Jan; 12(1). doi: 10.1186/s42077-019-0037-7.

Zhou N, Liang X, Gong J, Li H, Liu W, Zhou S et al. S-ketamine Used During Anesthesia Induction Increases the Perfusion Index and Mean Arterial Pressure After Induction: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2022 Dec; 179: 106312. doi: 10.1016/j.ejps.2022.106312.

Højlund J, Petersen DR, Agerskov M, Foss NB. The Peripheral Perfusion Index Discriminates Hemodynamic Responses to Induction of General Anesthesia. Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing. 2023 Dec; 37(6): 1533-40. doi: 10.1007/s10877-023-01035-z.

Højlund J, Agerskov M, Clemmesen CG, Hvolris LE, Foss NB. The Peripheral Perfusion Index Tracks Systemic Hemodynamics During General Anesthesia. Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing. 2020 Dec; 34(6): 1177-84. doi: 10.1007/s10877-019-00420-x.

Mohamed Atef Refaat M, Ali Elkafrawy L, Elkabarity RH, Hafez AF. Effect of Dexmedetomidine vs Midazolam on the Microcirculation of Septic Patients Who Are Mechanically Ventilated. Egyptian Journal of Anesthesia. 2022 Dec; 38(1): 459-65. doi: 10.1080/11101849.2022.2109826.

Nakasuji M and Nakasuji K. Causes of Arterial Hypotension During Anesthetic Induction with Propofol Investigated with Perfusion Index and Clearsighttm in Young and Elderly Patients. Minerva Anestesiologica. 2021 Mar; 87(6): 640-7. doi: 10.23736/S0375-9393.21.15226-5.

Amri I, Arif SK. Perbandingan Efek Deksmedetomidin 0, 75 µg/kgBB Dengan Fentanil 2 µg/kgBB Intravena Terhadap Kebutuhan Dosis Induksi Propofol Dan Respon Hemodinamik Selama Tindakan Laringoskopi Dan Intubasi Trakhea. Jurnal Kesehatan Tadulako. 2017 Jan; 3(1): 1-84.

Smischney NJ, Seisa MO, Morrow AS, Ponce OJ, Wang Z, Alzuabi M et al. Effect of Ketamine/Propofol Admixture on Peri‐Induction Hemodynamics: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. Anesthesiology Research and Practice. 2020; 2020(1): 9637412. doi: 10.1155/2020/9637412.

Afghaniyan P, Farhadian M, Tarbiat M, Bakhshaei MH, Salimbahrami SA. Comparing the Hemodynamic Effects of Midazolam, Etomidate, And Propofol Following Anesthesia Induction in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial. The Journal of Tehran University Heart Center. 2024 Apr; 19(2): 89. doi: 10.18502/jthc.v19i2.16197.

Atchley E, Tesoro E, Meyer R, Bauer A, Pulver M, Benken S. Hemodynamic Effects of Ketamine Compared with Propofol or Dexmedetomidine as Continuous ICU Sedation. Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 2022 Jul; 56(7): 764-72. doi: 10.1177/10600280211051028.

Baysal A, Polat TB, Yalcin Y, Celebi A. The Use of Basic Parameters for Monitoring the Hemodynamic Effects of Midazolam and Ketamine as Opposed to Propofol During Cardiac Catheterization. Cardiology in the Young. 2014 Apr; 24(2): 351-8. doi: 10.1017/S1047951108001935.