Bratislavske lekarske listy · 2013
Comparison of propofol-dexmedetomidine, tiopental-dexmedetomidine and etomidate-dexmedetomidine combinations' effects on the tracheal intubation conditions without using muscle relaxants.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Bollucuoglu K, Hanci V, Yurtlu S, Okyay D, Ayoglu H, Turan I O
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In our study, we aimed to compare the endotracheal intubation conditions without muscle relaxants during induction with the combinations of dexmedotimidine-propofol, dexmedotimidine-thiopenthal and dexmedetomidine-etomidate.
METHOD: Seventy-six patients, in ASA risk group I-II, between ages 20-60 years, with Mallampati Class 1 were included in the study. All patients were premedicated with midazolam. The patients were randomly divided into three groups as Group P (n=30, dexmedetomidine-propofol), Group T (n=30, dexmedetomidine-thiopenthal), Group E (n=16, dexmedetomidine-etomidate). All patients received dexmedetomidine 1 μg.kg-1 in 10 min. Then, the patients were administered 2.5 mg.kg-1 propofol for Group P, 5 mg.kg-1 thiopental for Group T and 0.3 mg.kg-1 etomidate for Group E during induction. Hemodynamic data of the patients were recorded before induction, after dexmedetomidine administration, immediately after intubation and 3, 5 and 10 minutes after intubation.
RESULTS: There was no difference between the groups according to hemodynamic data. Sixteen patients in Group P and 10 patients in Group T had acceptable intubation conditions. Muscle relaxant was needed in 14, 20 and 16 patients in Groups P, T and E, respectively (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we determined that best intubation conditions without muscle relaxants were achieved with propofol-dexmedetomidine combination. None of the patients receiving etomidate -dexmedetomidine combination could be intubated without muscle relaxants (Tab. 6, Ref. 29).
METHOD: Seventy-six patients, in ASA risk group I-II, between ages 20-60 years, with Mallampati Class 1 were included in the study. All patients were premedicated with midazolam. The patients were randomly divided into three groups as Group P (n=30, dexmedetomidine-propofol), Group T (n=30, dexmedetomidine-thiopenthal), Group E (n=16, dexmedetomidine-etomidate). All patients received dexmedetomidine 1 μg.kg-1 in 10 min. Then, the patients were administered 2.5 mg.kg-1 propofol for Group P, 5 mg.kg-1 thiopental for Group T and 0.3 mg.kg-1 etomidate for Group E during induction. Hemodynamic data of the patients were recorded before induction, after dexmedetomidine administration, immediately after intubation and 3, 5 and 10 minutes after intubation.
RESULTS: There was no difference between the groups according to hemodynamic data. Sixteen patients in Group P and 10 patients in Group T had acceptable intubation conditions. Muscle relaxant was needed in 14, 20 and 16 patients in Groups P, T and E, respectively (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we determined that best intubation conditions without muscle relaxants were achieved with propofol-dexmedetomidine combination. None of the patients receiving etomidate -dexmedetomidine combination could be intubated without muscle relaxants (Tab. 6, Ref. 29).