Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier) · 2021
Effects of lidocaine and esmolol on hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation: a randomized clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеEquivalence TrialНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mendonça Fabrício Tavares, Silva Samuel Laurindo da, Nilton Tiago Maurmann, Alves Igor Reis Rodrigues
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Although lidocaine is widely used to prevent cardiovascular changes resulting from laryngoscopy and orotracheal intubation, it is still unclear whether there are more efficacious drugs. This study aimed to compare the beta-blocker esmolol with lidocaine regarding the effects on hemodynamic response after orotracheal intubation.
METHODS: The study has a prospective, randomized, double-blind, superiority design, and assessed 69 participants between 18 and 70 years of age, ASA I-II, scheduled for elective or emergency surgery under general anesthesia with orotracheal intubation. Participants were randomly allocated to receive 1.5 mg.kg-1 esmolol bolus followed by 0.1 mg.kg-1.min-1 esmolol infusion (n = 34) or 1.5 mg.kg-1 lidocaine bolus followed by 1.5 mg.kg-1.h-1 lidocaine infusion (n = 35). We recorded changes in heart rate, arterial blood pressure and incidence of adverse events.
RESULTS: Post-intubation tachycardia episodes were significantly less frequent in the esmolol group (5.9% vs. 34.3%; Relative Risk (RR) 0.17; 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) 0.04-0.71; Number Needed to Treat (NNT) 3.5; p = 0.015. After orotracheal intubation, mean heart rate was significantly lower in the esmolol group (74.5 vs. 84.5, p = 0.006). Similar results were observed in the subsequent 3 and 6 minutes (75.9 vs. 83.9, p = 0.023 and 74.6 vs. 83.0, p = 0.013, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Esmolol was a safe and more effective intervention to reduce incidence of tachycardia and control heart rate immediately after tracheal intubation when compared to lidocaine.
METHODS: The study has a prospective, randomized, double-blind, superiority design, and assessed 69 participants between 18 and 70 years of age, ASA I-II, scheduled for elective or emergency surgery under general anesthesia with orotracheal intubation. Participants were randomly allocated to receive 1.5 mg.kg-1 esmolol bolus followed by 0.1 mg.kg-1.min-1 esmolol infusion (n = 34) or 1.5 mg.kg-1 lidocaine bolus followed by 1.5 mg.kg-1.h-1 lidocaine infusion (n = 35). We recorded changes in heart rate, arterial blood pressure and incidence of adverse events.
RESULTS: Post-intubation tachycardia episodes were significantly less frequent in the esmolol group (5.9% vs. 34.3%; Relative Risk (RR) 0.17; 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) 0.04-0.71; Number Needed to Treat (NNT) 3.5; p = 0.015. After orotracheal intubation, mean heart rate was significantly lower in the esmolol group (74.5 vs. 84.5, p = 0.006). Similar results were observed in the subsequent 3 and 6 minutes (75.9 vs. 83.9, p = 0.023 and 74.6 vs. 83.0, p = 0.013, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Esmolol was a safe and more effective intervention to reduce incidence of tachycardia and control heart rate immediately after tracheal intubation when compared to lidocaine.