Efficacy of Ephedrine Versus Lignocaine Pretreatment In Preventing Pain Following Propofol Injection: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study.

S. Kinthala, P. Durga, S. Tirumala, G. Ramachandran, L. Kurnutala
{"title":"Efficacy of Ephedrine Versus Lignocaine Pretreatment In Preventing Pain Following Propofol Injection: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study.","authors":"S. Kinthala, P. Durga, S. Tirumala, G. Ramachandran, L. Kurnutala","doi":"10.5580/2cec","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Injection pain and hypotension are the two main adverse effects of propofol. The commonly used lignocaine pretreatment for reducing injection pain has a failure rate between 1332 %. There are few studies in literature using ephedrine pretreatment for reduction of propofol injection pain and these studies have also looked at the effect of ephedrine in overcoming hypotension and hemodynamic stability, each with varying results. We studied the effect of ephedrine 50μg/kg pretreatment on prevention of propofol injection pain and hemodynamics.Methods: This prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled study was conducted after obtaining institutional ethical committee approval. Patients (eighty one patients) were randomly allocated to one of three groups. Each group consisting 27 (n= 27) patients were to receive one of lignocaine (Group L, n = 27), normal saline (Group S, n = 27) or ephedrine (Group E, n = 27) as pretreatment. Group Lpretreatment with 2% lignocaine 2 ml. Group Spretreatment with 0.9% normal saline 2ml, Group Epretreatment with ephedrine 50 μg/kg body weight diluted in normal saline into a 2 ml normal saline solution. Propofol was injected 30 sec later. A blinded researcher assessed the patient's pain level using a four point verbal rating scale.Results: There was no significant difference with respect to patient's characteristics and hemodynamic changes during propofol induction among the three groups. There was a statistically significant difference in the incidence of pain between groups. Patients who received lignocaine pretreatment group had 51.8% pain. The Normal saline pretreatment group had 77.8% pain. Ephedrine pretreatment group had pain as high as 70.4 %.Conclusion: Ephedrine used as pretreatment in dose of 50 μg/kg is neither useful to decrease propofol injection pain nor to maintain better hemodynamic.","PeriodicalId":396781,"journal":{"name":"The Internet Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Internet Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5580/2cec","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Injection pain and hypotension are the two main adverse effects of propofol. The commonly used lignocaine pretreatment for reducing injection pain has a failure rate between 1332 %. There are few studies in literature using ephedrine pretreatment for reduction of propofol injection pain and these studies have also looked at the effect of ephedrine in overcoming hypotension and hemodynamic stability, each with varying results. We studied the effect of ephedrine 50μg/kg pretreatment on prevention of propofol injection pain and hemodynamics.Methods: This prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled study was conducted after obtaining institutional ethical committee approval. Patients (eighty one patients) were randomly allocated to one of three groups. Each group consisting 27 (n= 27) patients were to receive one of lignocaine (Group L, n = 27), normal saline (Group S, n = 27) or ephedrine (Group E, n = 27) as pretreatment. Group Lpretreatment with 2% lignocaine 2 ml. Group Spretreatment with 0.9% normal saline 2ml, Group Epretreatment with ephedrine 50 μg/kg body weight diluted in normal saline into a 2 ml normal saline solution. Propofol was injected 30 sec later. A blinded researcher assessed the patient's pain level using a four point verbal rating scale.Results: There was no significant difference with respect to patient's characteristics and hemodynamic changes during propofol induction among the three groups. There was a statistically significant difference in the incidence of pain between groups. Patients who received lignocaine pretreatment group had 51.8% pain. The Normal saline pretreatment group had 77.8% pain. Ephedrine pretreatment group had pain as high as 70.4 %.Conclusion: Ephedrine used as pretreatment in dose of 50 μg/kg is neither useful to decrease propofol injection pain nor to maintain better hemodynamic.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
麻黄碱与利多卡因预处理预防异丙酚注射后疼痛的疗效:一项前瞻性、随机、双盲、安慰剂对照研究。
背景:注射疼痛和低血压是异丙酚的两个主要不良反应。常用的利多卡因预处理减少注射疼痛的失败率在1332%之间。文献中很少有研究使用麻黄碱预处理来减少异丙酚注射疼痛,这些研究也研究了麻黄碱在克服低血压和血流动力学稳定性方面的作用,每项研究都有不同的结果。研究麻黄碱50μg/kg预处理对预防异丙酚注射痛及血流动力学的影响。方法:这项前瞻性、随机、双盲、安慰剂对照研究在获得机构伦理委员会批准后进行。患者(81例)随机分为三组。每组27例(n= 27)患者分别接受利多卡因(L组,n= 27)、生理盐水(S组,n= 27)或麻黄碱(E组,n= 27)的预处理。l组预处理2%利多卡因2ml。组预处理0.9%生理盐水2ml, e组预处理麻黄碱50 μg/kg体重在生理盐水中稀释成生理盐水溶液2ml。30秒后注射异丙酚。一名盲法研究人员用四分口头评定量表评估了病人的疼痛程度。结果:三组患者在异丙酚诱导过程中的特征及血流动力学变化无显著差异。两组患者疼痛发生率差异有统计学意义。利多卡因预处理组疼痛发生率为51.8%。生理盐水预处理组疼痛发生率为77.8%。麻黄素预处理组疼痛率高达70.4%。结论:50 μg/kg麻黄碱预处理对减轻异丙酚注射疼痛和维持较好的血流动力学均无作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Inferior Alveolar Nerve Injury With Laryngeal Mask Airway Unusual Oral Cavity Metastasis From Follicular Carcinoma Of The Thyroid – A Case Report Efficacy of Ephedrine Versus Lignocaine Pretreatment In Preventing Pain Following Propofol Injection: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study. Cesarean Section of a 25 3/7 Week Parturient with Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva: A Case Report Magill Forceps- An Aid For Difficult Intubation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1