Comparison of thiopentone sodium and propofol for anaesthesia in modified Electro-Convulsive Therapy (ECT)

Jignesh D. Patel, Dr. Rama Upadhyaya, Dr. Himanshu Shah, Dr. Dixit Patel, Dr. Tejash Sharma

Abstract


Objectives:  To compare the effects of thiopentone sodium and propofol as an intravenous anaesthetic agent in modified ECT.

Methods:  30 patients of ASA I & II grade were randomly assigned in to two groups. Both groups were premedicated in ususal manner. Patients were induced with inj. thiopentone sodium 3-5mg/kg (Group T) and inj. Propofol 1.5-2mg/kg (group P) according to the groups. Then, Inj. Succinyl choline 0.5-1mg/kg was given. Patients were ventilated with 100% oxygen with bain circuit and mask. Shock was given after putting bite block. Patients were again ventilated till spontaneous respiration after seizures.

Results:  Propofol is better induction agent as compared to thiopentone sodium in terms of faster induction, better haemodynaemic stability, no significant effect on seizure duration, early recovery without any side effects.

Conclusion:  Propofol in the dosage of 1.5-2 mg/kg body weight intravenously can be safely used for modified ECT in ASA grade I and II pateints. Fast, smooth induction, better hemodynamics, early smooth recovery, antiemetic property and uncompromised therapeutic outcome makes propofol as an agent of choice for day care procedure. Though there is reduced seizure duration with Propofol as compared to thiopentone, there is no effect on outcome of the therapy or effectiveness of ECT.


Keywords


Modified ECT, Thiopentone Sodium, Propofol.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Cerletti U, Bini L. Electro shock article. Acad Med 1938; 64:136.

Kalinowsky LB. History of convulsive therapy. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1986; 462:1-4.

Chanpattana W. The origin of Electro convulsive therapy. J Psychiatr Assoc Thailand 2000; 45:371-80.

Elkinci M, Hsu JJ, Bruck M, Brain RA. Diazepam as anticonvulsant agent in ECT. Am J Psychiatr 1994; 120:6.

Avramov MN, Husain MM, White PF. The comparative effect of Methohexital, Propofol and Etomedate for Electroconvulsive Therapy. Anaesthesia and analgesia 1995; 81:596-602.

Omprakash TM, Ali MI, Anand B, Devi MG, Surender P. Comparision of thiopentone sodium and propofol in ECT anaesthesia. Indian J Psychol Med 2008; 30:48-51.

Jain Shah Pratibha, Dubey Kamta Prasad, Watti Chhatarapal, Lalwani Jaya. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia 2010:54:4;296-301

Malsch E, Gratz I, Mani S, Backu C, Levy S, Allen E. Efficacy of Electroconvulsive Therapy after Methohexitol and Propofol anaesthesia. Convulsive therapy 1994; 10:212-219.

Kumar A, Sharma DK, Mani R. A comparison of propofol and thiopentone for electroconvulsive therapy. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2012;28:353-7

Ramptoti AS, Griffin RM, Stuart CS, et al. Comparison of’ methohexital aitd propafol for electro convulsive therapy: Effects on hcmodynamic responses and seizure duration. Anesthesiology, 1989:70:412-17.

Edward Morgan G Jr., Maged S. Mikhail, Michael J. Murray. Non-volatile anaesthetic agents, clinical anaesthesiology, Chapter 8, 4th ed, Mc Graw Publications.

Fear Cf, Little Johns CS, Rouse E and Mc Quail P. Propofol anaesthesia in ECT. The Brisitsh Journal of Psychiatry 1994; 165:506-509.

Daria Usha, Vinod Kumar. Comparison of thiopentone and propofol- As better anaesthetic agent FOR modified electroconvulsive therapy. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2012; 5 (2): 227-230.

Lee, Victor C, Mosciki, Jeffery C, D Fazio, Cosmo A. Propofol Sedation Produces Dose-Dependent Suppression of Lidocaine-Induced Seizures in Rats. Anaesthesia Analgesia. 1998; 86(3):652-657.

Alok Kumar, et al: Propofol vs thiopentone for ECT. Journal of Anaesthesiology 2012; 28(3): 353-357.

Zaidi Nadeem A, Khan Fauzia A. Comparison of Thiopentone Sodium and Propofol for Electro Convulsive Therapy (ECT), JPMA 2000;50:60.

Yanny HF, Christmas D. Propofol infusion for status epilepticus, Anaesthesia 1988; 43:514.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7439/ijbr.v6i1.1486

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2015 International Journal of Biomedical Research

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.