JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2014
Lignocaine and Esmolol on Stress Response to Laryngoscopy and Intubation.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Rajbhandari P K
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation causes significant sympathetic response resulting in hypertension and tachycardia. In individuals with systemic hypertension, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease and intracranial aneurysm, the effect of this transient sympathetic response can evoke life threatening conditions like pulmonary oedema, cardiac failure and cerebrovascular haemorrhage.
METHODS: Patients were randomly divided into two groups, 30 in each group. Group I received 50 mg of esmolol and group II received lignocaine 2 mg/kg. Haemodynamic parameters like pulse, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure were measured before induction of anaesthesia, immediately after intubation then at intervals of one minute, three minutes, five minutes, seven minutes and 10 minutes.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in demographic or base line vital signs between two groups (Table 1). The mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) increased on laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation by 15 mmHg in the group I whereas in group II it was 17.4 mmHg. There was a significant rise in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in both the groups, but the rise was lesser in group II than in group I.
CONCLUSION: Both esmolol and lignocaine were not effective in attenuating hemodynamic stress response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation; however esmolol was superior to lignocaine in blunting the stress response.
METHODS: Patients were randomly divided into two groups, 30 in each group. Group I received 50 mg of esmolol and group II received lignocaine 2 mg/kg. Haemodynamic parameters like pulse, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure were measured before induction of anaesthesia, immediately after intubation then at intervals of one minute, three minutes, five minutes, seven minutes and 10 minutes.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in demographic or base line vital signs between two groups (Table 1). The mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) increased on laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation by 15 mmHg in the group I whereas in group II it was 17.4 mmHg. There was a significant rise in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in both the groups, but the rise was lesser in group II than in group I.
CONCLUSION: Both esmolol and lignocaine were not effective in attenuating hemodynamic stress response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation; however esmolol was superior to lignocaine in blunting the stress response.