{"title":"Comparison of propofol alone <i>vs</i> propofol-phenylephrine combination for intraoperative hemodynamic stability in glioma surgery.","authors":"Rhea Thotungal, Ashutosh Kaushal, Amit Agrawal, Anuj Jain, Vaishali Waindeskar, Rudrashish Haldar, Pfokreni Lokho","doi":"10.5662/wjm.117220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Propofol is widely used for induction in glioma surgery for its neuroprotective effects and favorable recovery profile. However, its dose-dependent hypotension is a major limitation in procedures requiring stable cerebral perfusion.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the efficacy of propofol <i>vs</i> propofol-phenylephrine (PPE) combination in maintaining hemodynamic stability in patients undergoing glioma surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ninety American Society of Anesthesiologists I-II patients scheduled for elective glioma surgery were randomized to receive either propofol (group P) or a PPE admixture (group PPE). Induction was performed with slow titration of the study drug until loss of verbal response and Bispectral index < 60, followed by a continuous infusion (50 μg/kg/minute) until skin closure. Hemodynamic parameters [mean arterial pressure (MAP), systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate] were recorded at baseline, during induction, immediately after intubation, and at predefined intraoperative time points. The incidence of hypotension, vasopressor and esmolol use, and brain relaxation scores were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Group PPE demonstrated significantly better preservation of MAP, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate throughout the peri-induction and intraoperative periods (<i>P</i> < 0.05). The mean maximum MAP reduction during induction was greater in group P compared with group PPE (19.7 mmHg <i>vs</i> 12.5 mmHg; <i>P</i> < 0.01). Hypotensive episodes were significantly more frequent in group P than in group PPE (84.4% <i>vs</i> 6.7%; <i>P</i> < 0.001). Rescue phenylephrine requirements were markedly lower in group PPE (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Esmolol use and brain relaxation scores were comparable between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adding phenylephrine to propofol for induction and maintenance provides superior hemodynamic stability without compromising brain relaxation in glioma surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":94271,"journal":{"name":"World journal of methodology","volume":"16 3","pages":"117220"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13491126/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World journal of methodology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.117220","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Propofol is widely used for induction in glioma surgery for its neuroprotective effects and favorable recovery profile. However, its dose-dependent hypotension is a major limitation in procedures requiring stable cerebral perfusion.
Aim: To compare the efficacy of propofol vs propofol-phenylephrine (PPE) combination in maintaining hemodynamic stability in patients undergoing glioma surgery.
Methods: Ninety American Society of Anesthesiologists I-II patients scheduled for elective glioma surgery were randomized to receive either propofol (group P) or a PPE admixture (group PPE). Induction was performed with slow titration of the study drug until loss of verbal response and Bispectral index < 60, followed by a continuous infusion (50 μg/kg/minute) until skin closure. Hemodynamic parameters [mean arterial pressure (MAP), systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate] were recorded at baseline, during induction, immediately after intubation, and at predefined intraoperative time points. The incidence of hypotension, vasopressor and esmolol use, and brain relaxation scores were compared.
Results: Group PPE demonstrated significantly better preservation of MAP, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate throughout the peri-induction and intraoperative periods (P < 0.05). The mean maximum MAP reduction during induction was greater in group P compared with group PPE (19.7 mmHg vs 12.5 mmHg; P < 0.01). Hypotensive episodes were significantly more frequent in group P than in group PPE (84.4% vs 6.7%; P < 0.001). Rescue phenylephrine requirements were markedly lower in group PPE (P < 0.001). Esmolol use and brain relaxation scores were comparable between groups.
Conclusion: Adding phenylephrine to propofol for induction and maintenance provides superior hemodynamic stability without compromising brain relaxation in glioma surgery.
背景:异丙酚因其神经保护作用和良好的恢复特性被广泛应用于神经胶质瘤手术诱导。然而,它的剂量依赖性低血压是需要稳定脑灌注的手术的主要限制。目的:比较异丙酚与异丙酚-苯肾上腺素(PPE)联合使用对维持胶质瘤手术患者血流动力学稳定性的影响。方法:90名美国麻醉医师学会I-II期计划进行选择性胶质瘤手术的患者随机接受异丙酚(P组)或PPE混合物(PPE组)。诱导时缓慢滴注研究药物,直至言语反应消失且双谱指数< 60,然后持续滴注(50 μg/kg/分钟),直至皮肤闭合。血流动力学参数[平均动脉压(MAP)、收缩压、舒张压和心率]在基线、诱导时、插管后立即和预先确定的术中时间点记录。比较低血压、血管加压药和艾司洛尔的使用情况以及大脑放松评分。结果:PPE组在围术期和术中MAP、收缩压、舒张压、心率的保存均明显优于对照组(P < 0.05)。与PPE组相比,P组诱导时MAP平均最大减少量更大(19.7 mmHg vs 12.5 mmHg, P < 0.01)。P组低血压发作频率明显高于PPE组(84.4% vs 6.7%; P < 0.001)。PPE组抢救时苯肾上腺素需用量显著降低(P < 0.001)。艾司洛尔的使用和大脑放松评分在两组之间具有可比性。结论:在神经胶质瘤手术中,在异丙酚中加入苯肾上腺素用于诱导和维持,可提供更好的血流动力学稳定性,而不影响大脑松弛。