4.6 Article

Predictors of hypotension after induction of general anesthesia

期刊

ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA
卷 101, 期 3, 页码 622-628

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000175214.38450.91

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypotension after induction of general anesthesia is a common event. In the current investigation, we sought to identify the predictors of clinically significant hypotension after the induction of general anesthesia. Computerized anesthesia records of 4096 patients undergoing general anesthesia were queried for arterial blood pressure (BP), demographic information, preoperative drug history, and anesthetic induction regimen. The median BP was determined preinduction and for 0-5 and 5-10 min postinduction of anesthesia. Hypotension was defined as either: mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) decrease of > 40% and MAP < 70 mm Hg or MAP < 60 mm Hg. Overall, 9% of patients experienced severe hypotension 0 -10 min postinduction of general anesthesia. Hypotension was more prevalent in the second half of the 0 -10 min interval after anesthetic induction (P < 0.001). In 2406 patients with retrievable foutcome data, prolonged postoperative stay and/or death was more common in patients with versus those without postinduction hypotension (13.3% and 8.6%, respectively, multivariate P < 0.02). Statistically significant multivariate predictors of hypotension 0-10 min after anesthetic induction included: ASA III-V, baseline MAP < 70 mm Hg, age >= 50 yr, the use of propofol for induction of anesthesia, and increasing induction dosage of fentanyl. Smaller doses of propofol, etomidate, and thiopental were not associated with less hypotension. To avoid severe hypotension, alternatives to propofol anesthetic induction (e.g., etomidate) should be considered in patients older than 50 yr of age with ASA physical status >= 3. We conclude that it is advisable to avoid propofol induction in patients who present with baseline MAP < 70 mm Hg.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据