Cholecystectomy, the removal of the gallbladder, is a frequently performed surgical procedure on a global scale, primarily recommended for cases of Acute/chronic cholecystitis, symptomatic cholelithiasis, biliary dyskinesia, acalculous cholecystitis, gallstone pancreatitis, gallbladder masses/polyps and extensive upper abdominal surgeries with adhesions.[1] Two prevalent approaches to cholecystectomy are open cholecystectomy, a traditional surgical method involving a sizable incision, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy, a minimally invasive procedure utilizing small incisions and specialized instruments for gallbladder removal. [2] The evolution of laparoscopic techniques has been particularly notable in the management of cholelithiasis, with laparoscopic cholecystectomy emerging as a widely accepted alternative to traditional laparotomy for gallbladder removal.[3]

The gold standard for cholecystectomy has shifted to a laparoscopic procedure with the introduction of laparoscopic surgery and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the late 1980s.[4] Laparoscopic surgery has revolutionized surgical practices due to lower total medical expenses, decreased bleeding, fewer postoperative surgical and pulmonary problems, and quicker recovery times, since mid-1950s.[5]

Traditionally, laparoscopic procedures are carried out when the patient is under general anaesthesia after insufflating carbon dioxide to create an artificial pneumoperitoneum that allows for a clear view of the abdominal contents.[6] Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the preferred gas due to its non-combustible nature, rapid clearance, and high solubility in blood. However, the drawback lies in CO2 absorption, which can lead to hypercapnia and respiratory acidosis.[7] During the creation of artificial pneumoperitoneum due to increased intra-abdominal pressure and the release of several neurohumeral components, various organ systems of the body experience major physiological changes like tachycardia and hypertension. These hemodynamic alterations also result in significant physiological changes. These changes are best managed by the use of general anaesthesia (GA).[8]

Open cholecystectomy, in comparison to routine laparoscopic cholecystectomy, is associated with a higher incidence of complications.[9] Prolonged recovery times may result in extended periods away from work, further impacting individuals. The heightened complication rate may necessitate additional medical interventions and procedures, particularly in cases of bile duct injuries during the operation.[10]

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy involves a distinctive aspect in which changes in body positioning, such as transitioning from Trendelenburg during pneumoperitoneum establishment to reverse Trendelenburg during gallbladder dissection, are essential for preventing inadvertent bowel injury and ensuring optimal exposure. Further alterations in position occur when the patient is positioned supine for intraoperative cholangiogram. The shift to reverse Trendelenburg position is expected to confer respiratory advantages but may pose cardiovascular disadvantages.[11] Additionally, the anesthesia-induced hemodynamic response also has sequential effects.[12] One notable concern is the potential for accelerated hypotension due to sympathetic blockade, as Regional Anesthesia may affect the normal autonomic regulation of blood pressure. Additionally, ventilatory changes can occur due to the higher sensory blockade and patients may experience shoulder-tip pain resulting from diaphragmatic irritation. Another consideration is the possibility of increased surgical time, attributed to the constraints imposed by the intra-abdominal pressure during procedures performed under regional anaesthesia.[13,14] In routine practice, the conventional approach for securing the airway during laparoscopic surgery involves endotracheal intubation which is invariably associated with sympathetic stimulation which can lead to tachycardia, hypertension, and arrhythmias.[15] The hemodynamic changes induced by endotracheal intubation are typically transient, variable, and unpredictable. While these alterations may pose minimal risk to healthy individuals, they can be potentially hazardous in patients with history of pre-existing conditions such as hypertension, myocardial ischemia, cerebrovascular diseases, or elevated intraocular pressures.[16] Supraglottic airway devices have been advocated as an alternative approach in certain studies. However, concerns persist regarding their use in laparoscopic surgery. Another concern is the potential risk of gastroesophageal regurgitation, posing a risk of aspiration. Additionally, achieving effective ventilation is challenging due to the impact of artificial pneumoperitoneum and postural changes on airway pressure and pulmonary compliance.[17] The altered intra-abdominal pressure and patient positioning inherent in laparoscopic procedures affect the dynamics of air movement and increase the likelihood of complications. Therefore, although supraglottic airway devices may offer advantages, careful consideration of the potential issues is crucial in determining their appropriateness for specific cases, ensuring patient safety during laparoscopic interventions. However, the most common approach is general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation with controlled ventilation, offering airway protection and preventing aspiration pneumonia.[18,19]

The efficacy of admixture of various induction agents has been explored in recent years and synergism has been found between these induction agents. Propofol, a 2,6- diisopropylphenyl developed in Europe during the 1970s, boasts rapid induction and recovery times, along with antiemetic and anticonvulsant effects. Despite these advantages, its major drawbacks include dose-dependent hypotension and respiratory depression. This evolving understanding of the interactions between induction agents opens avenues for refining anesthetic protocols to achieve optimal sedation while minimizing adverse effects.[20,21]  for optimizing patient comfort and recovery in the perioperative setting.[22,23] Despite its distinctive benefits, when used as a sole induction agent, ketamine has limitations due to its psychomimetic and sympathomimetic effects.[24] Utilization of Ketamine as an anesthetic is limited by several side effects such as nausea, vomiting, emergence hallucinations, and an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, attributed to its sympathomimetic effects and its potential to elevate intracranial pressure.[25]

In recent years, efficacy of combining ketamine and propofol, commonly known as 'ketofol' has been thoroughly investigated. The synergistic effect of these agents has been linked to a hemodynamically favorable profile. Each drug in this combination is believed to counteract the undesirable effects of the other, establishing a balanced and well-tolerated mixture. Previous studies have provided evidence supporting the positive hemodynamic outcomes associated with 'ketofol,' and the safety and stability of this combination have been well-documented in various settings.[26,27] the use of drug combinations, for example 'ketofol,' often results in a reduction of the total dose of each individual drug. This reduction can be advantageous in specific scenarios, such as managing patients in hemorrhagic shock, where minimizing the overall drug load may be a critical consideration for patient safety.[28]

The concept of combining ketamine with propofol, often referred as 'Ketofol,' has been suggested as a potential strategy to mitigate the hemodynamic adverse effects associated with each drug individually. This combination aims to achieve a stable hemodynamic profile during the induction of anesthesia, offering an additional advantage of reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) as well as postoperative shivering.[29,30]

Hence, the purpose of our study is to find out which drug is better either propofol or Ketofol for induction of GA in terms of stablility of haemodynamic variables (Mean Heart Rate, Mean Systolic Blood Pressure, Mean Diastolic Blood Pressure, Mean Arterial Pressure, Mean SpO2, Mean Rate Pressure Product).

 Aims and objectives-

AIM:- To evaluate the difference in haemodynamic variable (Mean Heart Rate, Mean Systolic Blood Pressure, Mean Diastolic Blood Pressure, Mean Arterial Pressure, Mean SpO2, Mean Rate Pressure Product) post induction with propofol v/s ketofol at different time interval (1,3,5,10,15 min)

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

• To determine the difference in haemodynamic variables (Mean Heart Rate, Mean Arterial Pressure, Mean Systolic Blood Pressure, Mean Diastolic Blood Pressure, Mean SpO2, Mean Rate Pressure Product) post induction period at different time interval (1,3,5,10,15 min).

SECONDARY OBJECTIVE

• To determine the difference in proportion of cases who experience side effects during post operative period (till 2 hrs) in both study groups.

PERMISSION - Permission from the institutional research review board and ethics committee was taken.

STUDY LOCATION – The study was conducted in Department of Anaesthesia in General Surgery OT, S.M.S medical college and attached group of hospitals, Jaipur with permission from institutional ethics committee.

STUDY DURATION – After approval of the research review board till the sample size was completed.

STUDY DESIGN – A Hospital based Prospective Randomized Interventional Comparative Study.

STUDY UNIVERSE – Cases undergoing Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Surgeries under General Anaesthesia requiring endotracheal intubation.

SAMPLE SIZE – A sample of 36 cases in each group was calculated at 95% confidence and 80% power to predict the expected difference of 6.73(+-10.11) beats per minutes in both study groups at 1 min post induction as per seed article.[70] This sample size was adequate to cover all other variables.

• RANDOMISATION – 72 Eligible study participants were randomly allocated into 2 study groups using computer generated random number table.
• BLINDING- As all the primary variables were objective variable, hence blinding was not possible.
• STUDY GROUPS – The study was conducted in following two groups of patients. Each group was consisting of 36 patients
• GROUP A - Patients received 1 mg/kg propofol plus 1 mg/kg ketamine (10 mg/ml dilution) diluted to 20 ml in a syringe as induction agent.
• GROUP B – Patients received 2 mg/kg propofol diluted to 20 ml with normal saline in a syringe as induction agent.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

INCLUSION CRITERIA:

1. Patients willing to give written informed consent.
2. ASA Grade I & II Patients
3. Age Groups-18-55 years of either sex
4. Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy              surgery under    GA          requiring endotracheal intubation.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA:

1. Patients with history of drug allergy, egg allergy.
2. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension and diabetes mellitus.
3. Patients with history of psychiatric illness.
4. Pregnant patients
5. Patients with BMI >30kg/m2

Pre anaesthetic checkup-

All selected patients underwent pre anaesthetic checkup, which included:

1. History

• Any significant present/past medical/surgical history
• History of any previous surgery with significant anaesthetic complication.
• History of present or past medication and history of any drug allergy.

2. General physical Examination including vitals & airway assessment for difficult intubation.
3. Systemic examination included assessment of Respiratory, Cardiovascular, Central nervous system & spine, Gastrointestinal tract and other systems.
4. Investigations

• Hematological - Hb%, TLC, DLC, Platelet Count, BT, CT, PT, INR.
• Fasting / random blood sugar.
• Blood urea, Serum Creatinine.
• LFT, Serum electrolytes.
• Chest X-ray, ECG.
• Viral Markers

Informed and written consent was obtained after providing complete explanation regarding the study protocol and the procedure.

Procedure- Patient identification, fasting status, written informed consent and PAC were checked. Intravenous access was taken. All Standard ASA multipara monitors (SPO2, ECG, NIBP) attached. Baseline Haemodynamic parameters such as HR, SBP, DBP, MAP, SPO2 were recorded.

Intravenous line was secured, and i.v. fluid Ringer Lactate was started at 10ml/kg/hour. Patients were premedicated with inj. ranitidine 50 mg i.v, inj. Metoclopramide 10mg i.v, inj. Glycopyrrolate 0.2 mg i.v. and inj. Midazolam 0.01mg/kg i.v. 5minutes prior to study drug. Haemodynamic variables (HR, SBP, DBP, MAP and SPO2) were recorded before induction (just prior to study drug)

Group-A: All patients received Inj Propofol 1mg/kg + Inj Ketamine 1mg/kg diluted to 20 ml in a syringe intravenously.

Group-B: All patients received Inj Propofol 2mg/kg diluted to 20 ml with normal saline in a syringe (10 mg/ml dilution) intravenously.

Inj Rocuronium (0.9 mg/kg) was given as a muscle relaxant to facilitate endotracheal intubation. Haemodynamic variables (HR, SBP, DBP, MAP and SPO2) were recorded before intubation. Patient were ventilated with 100% oxygen for 90 seconds and under direct laryngoscopy trachea was intubated with appropriate size E.T.T. Bilateral air entry was checked & tube was fixed and Haemodynamic variables (HR, SBP, DBP, MAP, AND SPO2) were measured at 1,3,5,10 & 15 min after intubation until pneumoperitoneum is created. Then surgery was allowed to commence & anaesthesia was maintained with 60% Nitrous Oxide and 40% Oxygen, 0.6 - 0.8% sevoflurane & inj. Rocuronium 0.1mg/kg i.v SOS. At the end of the surgery patient was reversed with Inj. Neostigmine (0.05mg/kg i.v.) and Inj. Glycopyrrolate (0.008mg/kg i.v.) & extubation was done, when patient fully awake and obeying verbal commands. Patient were shifted to recovery room. In recovery room patient were observed for any side effects.

OUTCOME VARIABLES

1. Mean Heart Rate,
2. Mean Systolic Blood Pressure,
3. Mean Diastolic Blood Pressure,
4. Mean of Mean Arterial Pressure,
5. Mean Rate Pressure Product
6. Mean SpO2,
7. Proportion of cases who will experience side

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Data obtained in this study were processed in Microsoft Excel 2007. Qualitative datas were measured as percentages and proportions while quantitative data was measured as mean and standard deviation from mean (SD). Appropriate statistical tests of significance were applied for analysis of the data collected using IBM SPSS Statistics version 22. The Categorical data was presented as numbers (percent) and were compared among groups using Chi square test. The quantitative data was presented as mean and standard deviation and were compared by students t-test. Probability was considered to be significant if less than 0.05.

The mean age of patients in Group A was 37.38±9.56years and in Group B was 36.94±8.08 years. The difference of mean age between the study groups was statistically not significant (P >0.05). Hence these groups were comparable with respect to age.

In Group A and Group B female patients are 16 and 14 respectively in both groups. Difference in sex ratio between these groups were statistically not significant (P>0.05). Hence these groups were comparable with respect to sex.

The mean Weight (kg.) of patients in Group A was 56.16±8.86 and in Group B was 55.41±9.36. The difference of Weight Distribution (kg.) between these groups was statistically not significant (P >0.05). Hence these groups were comparable with respect to Weight Distribution (kg.).

The difference of Mean Heart Rate between these groups was statistically significant (P <0.05) at these time intervals. Group A exhibited significantly lower and stable heart rate as compared to Group B.

The difference of Mean Systolic Blood Pressure between these groups was statistically significant (P <0.05) at these time intervals except just after pneumoperitoneum created. Group B exhibited significantly lower Mean SBP as compared to Group A.

Table- 1 Systolic Blood pressure

The difference of Mean Diastolic Blood Pressure between these groups was statistically significant (P <0.05) at these time intervals except just after pneumoperitoneum created. Group B exhibited significantly lower Mean DBP as compared to Group A.

The difference of Mean Arterial Blood Pressure between these groups was statistically significant (P <0.05) at these time intervals except just after pneumoperitoneum created it was not significant. Thus, in our study Group B showed significantly lower MAP as compared to Group A.

The difference of Mean Oxygen Saturation between these groups was statistically not significant (P >0.05) at these time intervals. Hence these groups were comparable with respect to Mean Oxygen Saturation at these time intervals.

The difference of Mean Rate Pressure Product between these groups was statistically significant (P <0.05) just after induction of anaesthesia, 1 min after Intubation (T1 ), 15 min after Intubation (T5) and just before pneumoperitoneum created. The difference of Mean Rate Pressure Product between these groups was statistically not significant (P >0.05) at all other time intervals. Hence these groups were comparable with respect to Mean RPP at these time intervals.

The comparison of number of patients had pain on injection between the two study groups. In group A 2 patients experienced the pain on injection out of 36 patients and in group B 10 patients experienced the pain on injection out of 36 patients. The difference of number of patients had Pain on injection between the study groups was statistically significant (P <0.05). Hence, Group A exhibited less pain on injection.

The comparison of number of patients developed Shivering between the two study groups. In group A 28 patients experienced grade 0, 5 patients experienced grade 1, 2 patients experienced grade 2, 1 patient experienced grade 3 Shivering out of 36 patients and in group B 15 patients experienced grade 0 ,11 patients experienced grade 1, 5 patients experienced grade 2, 4 patient experienced grade 3 Shivering out of 36 patients. The difference of incidence of Shivering between the study groups was statistically significant (P <0.05). Significantly a greater number of patients suffered from shivering in group B as compared to group A.

In group A 2 patients had hypotension out of 36 patients and in group B 10 patients had hypotension out of 36 patients. The difference of incidence of hypotension between the study groups was statistically significant (P <0.05), showing more incidence of hypotension in group B as compared to group A.

In group A 5 patients had hypertension out of 36 patients and in group B 1 patient had hypertension out of 36 patients. The difference of incidence of hypertension between the study groups was statistically not significant.

In group A 1 patient had bradycardia out of 36 patients and in group B 5 patients had bradycardia out of 36 patients. The difference of incidence of bradycardia between the study groups was statistically not significant.

In group A 2 patients had respiratory depression out of 36 patients and in group B 6 patients had respiratory depression out of 36 patients. The difference of incidence of respiratory depression between the study groups was statistically not significant.

In group A 4 patients had Hallucination \ Nystagmus \ Delirium out of 36 patients and in group B 1 patient had Hallucination \ Nystagmus \ Delirium out of 36 patients. The difference of incidence of Hallucination \ Nystagmus \ Delirium between the study groups was statistically not significant.

The difference of PONV Score between the two study groups was statistically not significant at any time interval (p value >0.05).

Present study to evaluate effect of propofol and ketofol on haemodynamic response following induction and intubation during general anaesthesia. So, in our study, we aim to compare ketofol (ketamine + propofol) and propofol as an induction agents to achieve a stable hemodynamic profile during intubation and until creation of pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

In our study, mean age of the patients in Group A was 37.38 ± 9.56 years and in Group B mean age of the patients was 36.94 ± 8.08 years. Difference in the age distribution between the study groups was found to be statistically insignificant (p value 0.789).

The gender distribution in our study was that in Group A and Group B male: female patients are 20:16 and 22:14 respectively. Difference in the sex ratio between the study groups was statistically insignificant (p value 0.632).

In Group A mean weight of the patients was 56.16±8.86 kg whereas in Group B the mean weight of the patients was 55.41±9.36 kg. Difference in mean weight of the patients among both study groups was statistically insignificant (p value 0.728).

Thus, both the groups were comparable with respect to age, gender distribution and weight to avoid any confounding factors.

HEMODYNAMIC PARAMETERS

We compared the hemodynamic variables between the two groups (HR, SBP, DBP, MAP) at various time intervals(baseline, just before induction of anaesthesia, immediately after intubation (T0) and then at 1 min, 3 min, 5 min, 10 min, 15 min after intubation and just before Pneumoperitoneum created.

The Mean baseline heart rate in Group A was 85.12 ± 3.97 bpm while in Group B was

85.48 ± 3.42 (p value 0.664). The Mean baseline systolic blood pressure in Group A was

127.69 ± 3.70 mmHg while in Group B was 127.68 ± 2.66 mmHg (p value 0.989). The Mean baseline diastolic blood pressure in Group A was 82.34 ± 3.60 mmHg while in Group B was 82.25 ± 4.53 mmHg (p value 0.925). The Mean arterial blood pressure in

Group A was 97.45 ± 2.54 mmHg while in Group B was 97.39 ± 2.29 mm Hg (p value 0.916). The Mean oxygen saturation in Group A was 98.41 ± 1.42 while in Group B was

98.98 ± 1.45 (p value 0.929). The Mean rate pressure product in Group A was 10866.42 ±

527.008 while in Group B was 10914.09 ± 454.81 (p value 0.682). Thus, both the groups were comparable with respect to mean baseline hemodynamic parameters.

HEART RATE

In our study we observed that in Group B, heart rate was significantly decreased in comparison to Group A just after induction, but after intubation heart rate increased and the difference between Group A (ketofol) & Group B (propofol) was significant. While in Group A heart rate showed a comparatively stable pattern from intubation to just before the creation of pneumoperitoneum. This shows stabilizing effect of ketofol on heart rate irrespective of stimulus like intubation and surgical incision.

These findings were similar to study done by Raman et. al [40] where the heart rate followed the stable trend after induction, during intubation, post-intubation after creation of pneumoperitoneum with ketofol. Similarly, Hamid Kayalha et. al[35] also found that heart rate was significantly lower in propofol group after induction, 5 min and 10 min after intubation when compared to ketofol group. In ketofol group, they found that heart rate followed a stable pattern after induction, 5 min and 10 min after intubation. The results of their study were consistent with our study. Aboeldahab H et. al[32] in a similar study also found ketofol more hemodynamically stable and their results were similar to our study. Seyoum Hailu et. al[39] also found the similar results where heart rate was significantly lower in the propofol group compared to ketofol group. Machhar et. al[71] also observed stable heart rate post induction with ketofol.

SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE

In our study we observed that after induction, systolic blood pressure was less in group B as compared to Group A. This difference was statistically significant, although the fall in the blood pressure in Group B could not be categorized under hypotension i.e it didn’t require any vasopressor support or fluid therapy. In Group A systolic blood pressure remained stable from induction to 10 min post intubation.

Our study was comparable with study conducted by Machhar et. al. [41] in which they also observed that ketofol group was better in respect of haemodynamic variations compared to propofol and etomidate alone. The findings were similar in another study done by Seyoum Hailu et. al[39] that the administration of ketofol for induction of general anesthesia provided stable systolic blood pressure than propofol during the first 30 min after induction. Similarly, Aboeldahab H et. al[32] also observed significantly lower systolic blood pressure in propofol group compared to ketofol post induction, post intubation at 5 min & 10 min. Similar results were observed by Ebru TK et. al[37] where ketofol group had comparatively more stable hemodynamics.

Our findings have attributed that the presence of ketamine in the ketofol due to its sympathomimetic effects which counterbalances the hypotensive effect of propofol.

DIASTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE

In our study we observed that Mean Diastolic Blood Pressure was significantly lower in group B than group A at post induction, T0, T1, T2, T3, T4. Although no significant hypotension occurred and blood pressure were within normal range. It shows that group A was better at maintaining diastolic blood pressure as compared to group B. Similar findings were also observed in study conducted by Aboeldahab et. al. [32] Another study done by Manickam et. al[34] found the similar results. Raman et. al[40] also observed that ketofol group was better at maintaining hemodynamic stability in terms of heart rate, systolic blood pressure, Diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure.

MEAN ARTERIAL PRESSURE

In our study we observed that the mean arterial pressure was significantly lower in group B than group A at various time intervals. Thus it shows that group A was better at maintaining hemodynamic stability as compared to group B.

Our study is comparable with the study carried by Raman et al[40] which demonstrated that ketofol(1:1 mixture) produced better haemodynamic stability when compared to propofol group. Another study by Smischney NJ et al [36] also observed that combination of ketamine-propofol provide better hemodynamic stability during first 10 minutes after induction as compared to propofol used alone. Similarly, Aboeldahab H et al [32] where mean arterial pressure decreased in Group propofol after induction when compared to Group ketofol which is similar to our study. Similar results were found in a study conducted by Atashkhoyi S et. al[33] where mean arterial pressure decreased during induction in placebo group when compared to ketofol group. In a similar study Ramakrishna et. al[43] found there is decrease in mean arterial pressure in propofol group when compared with ketofol group which is similar to our study.

OXYGEN SATURATION

The difference of Mean Oxygen Saturation between both the groups was statistically not significant (P >0.05) at various time intervals. Hence these groups were comparable with respect to Mean Oxygen Saturation at these time intervals.

MEAN RATE PRESSURE PRODUCT

Rate pressure product was stable throughout the study in group A while in group B there was a significant drop in rate pressure product after induction and intubation. After induction rate pressure product went upto 8031.336±380.34 in group B, the reason being hypotension and bradycardia associated with propofol. The findings are consistent with observations made by M Paulin et al[46] and Mangesh S Gore et al.[47] Rate pressure product is considered as surrogate marker of myocardial stress and oxygen consumption. The optimum range of RPP is said to be between 10,000 to 14,000 which gives minimal myocardial stress and myocardial oxygen demand. Both the drugs exhibit good safety profile in terms of levels of Rate pressure product. Levels of RPP>20,000 are more commonly associated with Myocardial ischemia and angina. So in both the groups in response to intubation, incision and creation of pneumoperitoneum, RPP didn’t critically rise, hence it shows cardio stability of both the drugs.

SIDE EFFECTS

INTRAOPERATIVE PERIOD

Pain on injection

We compared incidence of pain on injection between the two study groups. In group A 2 patients experienced the pain on injection out of 36 patients while in group B 10 patients experienced the pain on injection out of 36 patients. The difference of incidence of Pain on injection between the study groups was statistically significant (P <0.05).

The high incidence of pain on injection in group B is a common side effect during the use of propofol. Despite the use of lidocaine prior to propofol to counteract the incidence of pain on injection remains unacceptably high (20-30%). Pain with propofol injection is due to the free aqueous concentration of propofol in the emulsion or the activation of kininogens. In our study, the use of ketofol was found to significantly reduce incidence of pain on injection compared with propofol alone and these results were comparable with Previous studies where pretreatment with intravenous ketamine provided a simple and safe method of reducing the incidence of pain on injection of propofol. Ketamine activate NMDA receptors either in the vascular endothelium or in the central nervous system. Ketamine reduces the propofol injection pain by virtue of its local anesthetic property. Our results were similar to the study done by Yousef, G T et. al[44] in which they found lesser incidence of local pain at injection site in ketofol group.

POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD

In the postoperative period patients of both the study groups were monitored till 120 min (2 hours) at an interval 15 min for any postoperative side effects such shivering, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia, respiratory depression, hallucination\ nystagmus\ delirium, nausea and vomiting. The results of our study showed that 8 patients had shivering in group A and 20 patients in group B had shivering in the postoperative period. The incidence of shivering was significantly less in group A than group B. Our results were consistent with study done by Cheong et al. [45] Findings have suggested that propofol inhibits thermoregulatory centres and decreases core body temperature which results in shivering. In contrary, study done by Raman et al[40] found no patients in either group had postoperative shivering.

In our study, 2 patients had hypotension in group A and 10 patients had hypotension in group B in the postoperative period which was statistically significant. Although group B showed increased incidence of hypotension but the reason may be related to fluid deficits, preexisting infection or post-surgical bleeding. Propofol related postoperative hypotension can be a matter of further research.

Incidence of hypertension was comparatively less in group B where only 1 patient had hypertension as compared to 5 patients in group A. Incidence of other side effects as bradycardia\tachycardia, respiratory depression, hallucination\nystagmus\delirium and postoperative nausea vomiting was also statistically insignificant.

Our results were concordant with the study done by Foo et. al. [37] they concluded that ketofol was more effective in reducing frequency of hypotension and there is no differences observed in terms of bradycardia, desaturation and respiratory depression in the postprocedural phase.

The incidence of PONV was comparable between group A and group B at various time intervals in the postoperative period. The comparison of PONV Score between these groups was statistically non-significant (p value >0.05) at these time intervals. 10 patients in group A experienced postoperative nausea vomiting at 15 min whereas 4 patients in group B had PONV at 15 min in postoperative period. The results of our study were similar to study conducted by Manuel C Vallejo et. al[31] in 120 laparoscopic tubal ligations. They concluded that propofol-ketamine combination does not improve postoperative nausea vomiting.

Our study concluded that induction of general anaesthesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy with Ketofol is associated with a more stable haemodynamic stability without apparent side effects as compared to Propofol. Hence, the combination of ketamine and propofol proved to be significantly better than propofol alone.

1. Hassler KR, Collins JT, Philip K, et al. Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. [Updated 2022 Oct 24]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022 Jan-.
2. Mannam R, Sankara Narayanan R, Bansal A, et al. (September 21, 2023) Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Versus Open Cholecystectomy in Acute Cholecystitis: A Literature Review. Cureus 15(9): e45704. DOI 10.7759/cureus.45704
3. Way LW. Changing therapy for gallstone disease. N Engl J Med 1990;323: 1273-4.
4. Jones MW, Guay E, Deppen JG. Open Cholecystectomy. [Updated 2023 Apr 24]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.
5. Bajwa SJ, Kulshrestha A. Anaesthesia for laparoscopic surgery: General vs regional anaesthesia. Journal of minimal access surgery. 2016 Jan;12(1):4.
6. Hasanein R, El-Sayed W, Nabil N, Elsayed G. The effect of combined remifentanil and low dose ketamine infusion in patients undergoing laparoscopic gastric bypass. Egypt J Anaesth. 2011;27(4):255–60.
7. Gerges FJ, Kanazi GE, Jabbour-Khoury SI (2006) Anesthesia for laparoscopy: a review. J Clin Anesth 18: 67-78.
8. Barash PG, Cullen BF, Stoelting RK. Clinical Anaesthesia. 8th ed. Wolters Kluwer; 2017. p. 1261-72
9. Coccolini F, Catena F, Pisano M, Gheza F, Fagiuoli S, Di Saverio S, Leandro G, Montori G, Ceresoli M, Corbella D, Sartelli M, Sugrue M, Ansaloni L. Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Systematic review and meta- analysis. Int J Surg. 2015 Jun;18:196-204.
10. Kuga D, Ebata T, Yokoyama Y, Igami T, Sugawara G, Mizuno T, Yamaguchi J, Nagino M. Long-term survival after multidisciplinary therapy for residual gallbladder cancer with peritoneal dissemination: a case report. Surg Case Rep. 2017 Dec;3(1):76.
11. Wilcox S, Vandam LD. Alas, poor Trendelenburg and his position! A critique of its uses and effectiveness. Anesth Analg 1988; 67574-8.
12. Prys Roberts C, Green LT, Meloche R, Foex P. Studies of anaesthesia in relation to hypertension II: hemodynamic consequences of induction and endotracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth 1971; 43:531 –547.
13. Turkstani A, Ibraheim O, Khairy G, Alseif A, Khalil N. Spinal versus general anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A cost effectiveness and side effects study. APICARE. 2009;13:9–14.
14. Imbelloni LE, Fornasari M, Fialho JC, Sant’Anna R, Cordeiro JA. General anesthesia versus spinal anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2010;60:217–27.
15. Adhikari K, Devkota K, Sharma (Regmi) BD. Hemodynamic responses between I- gel and endotracheal tube in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries. Journal of Chitwan Medical College. 2022;12(39):29-33.
16. Sulaiman S, Karthekeyan RB, Vakamudi M, Sundar AS, Ravullapalli H, Gandham
17. The effects of dexmedetomidine on attenuation of stress response to endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing elective off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting Ann Card Anaesth. 2012;15:39–43
18. Mishra SK, Sivaraman B, Balachander H, Naggappa M, Parida S, Bhat RR, et al. Effect of pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenberg position on oropharyngeal sealing pressure of I-gel and ProSeal LMA in laparoscopic gynecological surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Anesth Essays Res. 2015;9(3):353–8.
19. Gonzalez R, Smith CD, McClusky III DA, et al. Laparoscopic approach reduces likelihood of perioperative complications in patients undergoing adrenalectomy. Am Surg 2004;70(8):668 - 74.
20. Amornyotin S (2013) Anesthetic management for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Endoscopy, Amornyotin S, editor, ISBN: 978-953- 51-1071-2, InTech, 39-48.
21. Short TG. Plummer JL, Chui PT: Hypnotic and anaesthetic interactions between midazolam, propofol and alfentanil. Br J Anaesth 69:162-167, 1992.
22. Kissin I, Vinik HR, Castillo R, Bradley EL: Alfentanil potentiates midazolam- induced unconsciousness in subanalgesic doses. Anesth Analg 71:65-69, 1990.
23. Green SM, Krauss B. The semantics of ketamine [editorial]. Ann Emerg Med 2000;39:480–2.
24. Bauchat JR, Higgins N, Wojciechowski KG, Mc Carthy RJ, Toledo P, Wong CA.Low-dose ketamine with multimodal postcesarean delivery analgesia: A randomized controlled trial. Int J Obstet Anesth 2011;20:3-9.
25. Menkiti ID, Desalu I, Kushimo OT. Low-dose intravenous ketamine improves postoperative analgesia after cesarean delivery with spinal bupivacaine in African parturients. Int J Obstet Anesth 2012;21:217-21
26. Strayer RJ, Nelson LS. Adverse events associated with ketamine for procedural sedation in adults. Am J Emerg Med 2008;26:985–1028.
27. Hui TW, Short TG, Hong W, Suen T, Gin T, Plummer J. Additive interactions between propofol and ketamine when used for anesthesia induction in female patients. Anesthesiology. 1995;82:641Y648.
28. Calimaran A, Lancaster K, Lerant A, Wiltshire W, Brunson C. Compatibility of propofol and ketamine in propofol-ketamine mixture. Anesthesiology. 2008;109:A694.
29. Johnson KB, Egan TD, Kern SE, McJames SW, Cluff ML, Pace NL. Influence of hemorrhagic shock followed by crystalloid resuscitation on propofol: a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis. Anesthesiology. 2004;101:647Y659
30. Aboeldahab H, Samir R, Hosny H, Omar A. Comparative study between propofol, ketamine and their combination (ketofol) as an induction agent. Egypt J Anaesth 2011;27:145-50.
31. White PF. Clinical pharmacology of intravenous induction agents. Int Anesthesiol Clin 1988;26:98-104.
32. Vallejo MC, Romeo RC, Davis DJ, Ramanathan S. Propofol-ketamine versus propofol-fentanyl for outpatient laparoscopy: comparison of postoperative nausea, emesis, analgesia, and recovery. Journal of clinical anesthesia. 2002 Sep 1;14(6): 426-31.
33. Aboeldahab H, Samir R, Hosny H, Omar A. Comparative study between propof, ketamine and their combination (ketofol) as an induction agent. Egypt J Anaesth. 2011;27(3):145–50.
34. Atashkhoyi S, Negargar S, Hatami-Marandi P. Effects of the addition of low-dose ketamine to propofol-fentanyl anaesthesia during diagnostic gynaecological laparoscopy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013;170:247-50
35. Manickam VS, Mohanasundaram P. Ketofol versus fentofol as induction agents for endotracheal intubation in emergency room. Int J Emerg Med. 2015 Apr 22;8(Suppl 1):P6.
36. Kayalha H, Kolahdoozha M, Yaghoobi S, Khezri MB, Mohajerani SA, Jahangirifard Effect of Ketofol instead of Propofol on hemodynamic stabilization for induction of Anesthesia in Laparatomy. J Cell Mol Anesth 2017;2:50-4.
37. Smischney NJ, Nicholson WT, Brown DR, Gallo De Moraes A, Hoskote SS, Pickering B, Oeckler RA, Iyer VN, Gajic O, Schroeder DR, Bauer PR. Ketamine/propofol admixture vs etomidate for intubation in the critically ill: KEEP PACE Randomized clinical trial. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019 Oct;87(4):883- 891.
38. Ebru TK, Resul K. Comparison of ketamine-propofol mixture (ketofol) and midazolam-meperidine in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancre atography (ERCP) for oldest old patients. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, 2019(15), 755– 763.
39. Foo TY, Mohd Noor N, Yazid MB, Fauzi MH, Abdull Wahab SF, Ahmad MZ. Ketamine-propofol (Ketofol) for procedural sedation and analgesia in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Emerg Med. 2020 Oct 8;20(1):81.
40. Hailu, S., Getachew, H., Hailu, S., Abebe, T., Seifu, A., Regassa, T., Girma, T., Dastew, B., Zemedkun, A., Neme, D., Teshome, D., & Tadesse, M. (2021). “Effectiveness of ketofol versus propofol induction on hemodynamic profiles in adult elective surgical patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” IJS Open, 37, p 100392. December 2021.
41. Raman, Vikasini; Segaran, Sivakumar; Ramyavel, T.; George, Sagiev Koshy; Zachariah, Mamie. Comparison of haemodynamic changes between propofol and ketofol as induction agents in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries under general anaesthesia. Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology: Apr–Jun 2022 - Volume 38 - Issue 2 - p 215-220
42. Machhar, Meenakshi & Meena, Khemraj & Gehlot, Ravindra & Kr, Rajesh. (2022). A COMPARISON OF PROPOFOL, ETOMIDATE AND KETOFOL AS INDUCTION AGENT: A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL STUDY. International Journal of Scientific Research. Volume 11.
43. Elsherbiny M, Hasanin A, Kasem S, Abouzeid M, Mostafa M, Fouad A, Abdelwahab Y. Comparison of different ratios of propofol-ketamine admixture in rapid-sequence induction of anesthesia for emergency laparotomy: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2023 Oct 3;23(1):329.
44. Ramakrishna S, Singh LC, Chingtham B, et al. Comparative study of effect of etomidate versus propofol plus ketamine on haemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. J Evid Based Med Healthc 2021;8(15):939-944. DOI: 10.18410/jebmh/2021/182
45. Yousef, Gamal T.; Elsayed, Khalid M.. A clinical comparison of ketofol (ketamine and propofol admixture) versus propofol as an induction agent on quality of laryngeal mask airway insertion and hemodynamic stability in children. Anesthesia: Essays and Researches 7(2):p 194-199, May–Aug 2013.
46. Cheong KF, Low TC. Propofol and postanaesthetic shivering. Anaesthesia. 1995 Jun;50(6):550-2.
47. Paulin M, Jullian-Papouin H, Roquebert PO, Manelli JC. Effets hémodynamiques du propofol utilisé comme agent unique pur l'induction de l'anesthésie [Hemodynamic effects of propofol used alone for the induction of anesthesia]. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 1987;6(4):237-9. French.
48. Mangesh S. Gore, Lipika A. Baliarsingh, Deepika Teckchandani. Hemodynamic response and dose requirement during induction and intubation with propofol and pentothal sodium in patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery. International Journal of Contemporary Medical Research 2019;6(5):E19-E24.