Premium
Diabetes Alters Cardiovascular Responses to Anesthetic Induction Agents in STZ‐diabetic Rats
Author(s) -
Crespo Maria J.,
Quidgley Jose,
Cruz Nildris,
Creagh Osmar,
Torres Hector,
Rivera Karines
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.25.1_supplement.1028.9
Subject(s) - etomidate , medicine , ketamine , propofol , diabetes mellitus , glibenclamide , streptozotocin , anesthesia , anesthetic , blood pressure , endocrinology
Diabetic patients have a higher incidence of CV than non‐diabetics. Studies are lacking regarding the most appropriate anesthetic induction agent for these patients. We assessed the CV effects of the minimal dose required for induction of anesthesia with propofol (50 mg/kg, IP), etomidate (20 mg/kg, IP), and ketamine (100 mg/kg, IP) in Sprague‐Dawley rats at 4 weeks after the onset of diabetes (Streptozotocin, STZ, 65mg/Kg, IP). Age‐matched, non‐diabetic rats were used for comparison. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and echocardiographic studies were evaluated. In non‐diabetic rats, SBP was significantly higher in ketamine‐treated groups (89.6±2.4 mmHg, P<0.05) than in etomidate (72.7±3.0 mmHg) or propofol (75.4±1.9 mmHg) groups. In diabetic rats, by contrast, SBP was higher in the propofol group than in the ketamine group (P<0.05). No differences were observed in cardiac output (CO), heart rate (HR), or stroke volume (SV) among non‐diabetic rats treated with either agent. In contrast, CO was lower in diabetic rats treated with ketamine (82.6±14 ml/min) or etomidate (78.2±15.8 ml/min) than in those treated with propofol (146±21 ml/min, N=8, P<0.01). In diabetic rats, propofol appears to have a safer cardiovascular profile than ketamine or etomidate. This study has strong implications for diabetic patients who will be subjected to induction of anesthesia. Supported by RCMI Grant G12RR03051