Effects of different dexmedetomidine doses on haemodynamic variability during laryngoscopy and intubation: A randomized double-blind study

D. Kalyani, Savita Meena, Siddharth Sharma
{"title":"Effects of different dexmedetomidine doses on haemodynamic variability during laryngoscopy and intubation: A randomized double-blind study","authors":"D. Kalyani, Savita Meena, Siddharth Sharma","doi":"10.18231/j.joapr.2023.11.2.20.26","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Effective airway management is vital in anesthesiology for preserving patient lives. Laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation, commonly used procedures, can lead to undesirable outcomes due to vagal activation and sympathoadrenal reaction. This double-blind, randomized interventional study aimed to assess the impact of two different doses of dexmedetomidine on heart rate and blood pressure during laryngoscopy and intubation, which often induce tachycardia and hypertension, particularly risky for patients with hypertension, myocardial insufficiency, and cerebrovascular disease.\n Methods: Seventy-six participants, aged 20-60 years and classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Grade I & II, were enrolled after Institutional Ethics Committee approval. Random allocation assigned them to two groups: Group A (0.5 µg/kg dexmedetomidine) and Group B (1.0 µg/kg dexmedetomidine) before anesthesia induction. Hemodynamic measurements were recorded at various time points: pre- and post-drug administration, before intubation, and at intervals thereafter.\n Results: Both groups exhibited similar age, weight, and gender distribution. Group B consistently demonstrated lower hemodynamic variables compared to Group A after laryngoscopy and intubation. Additionally, Group B required a smaller induction dose of propofol than Group A. No significant adverse effects were reported in either group during the study.\n Conclusion: The study suggests that intravenous administration of dexmedetomidine at a rate of 1 µg/kg is more effective than 0.5 µg/kg in attenuating the physiological response to laryngoscopy and intubation. Moreover, it reduces the required propofol dose for anesthesia induction. These findings highlight the potential benefits of higher dexmedetomidine doses in mitigating adverse physiological effects during airway management procedures","PeriodicalId":15232,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Research","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18231/j.joapr.2023.11.2.20.26","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Effective airway management is vital in anesthesiology for preserving patient lives. Laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation, commonly used procedures, can lead to undesirable outcomes due to vagal activation and sympathoadrenal reaction. This double-blind, randomized interventional study aimed to assess the impact of two different doses of dexmedetomidine on heart rate and blood pressure during laryngoscopy and intubation, which often induce tachycardia and hypertension, particularly risky for patients with hypertension, myocardial insufficiency, and cerebrovascular disease. Methods: Seventy-six participants, aged 20-60 years and classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Grade I & II, were enrolled after Institutional Ethics Committee approval. Random allocation assigned them to two groups: Group A (0.5 µg/kg dexmedetomidine) and Group B (1.0 µg/kg dexmedetomidine) before anesthesia induction. Hemodynamic measurements were recorded at various time points: pre- and post-drug administration, before intubation, and at intervals thereafter. Results: Both groups exhibited similar age, weight, and gender distribution. Group B consistently demonstrated lower hemodynamic variables compared to Group A after laryngoscopy and intubation. Additionally, Group B required a smaller induction dose of propofol than Group A. No significant adverse effects were reported in either group during the study. Conclusion: The study suggests that intravenous administration of dexmedetomidine at a rate of 1 µg/kg is more effective than 0.5 µg/kg in attenuating the physiological response to laryngoscopy and intubation. Moreover, it reduces the required propofol dose for anesthesia induction. These findings highlight the potential benefits of higher dexmedetomidine doses in mitigating adverse physiological effects during airway management procedures
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
不同剂量右美托咪定对喉镜检查和插管时血流动力学变异性的影响:一项随机双盲研究
背景:有效的气道管理在麻醉学中对于挽救患者生命至关重要。喉镜检查和气管插管,常用的程序,可导致不良的结果,由于迷走神经激活和交感肾上腺反应。这项双盲、随机介入研究旨在评估两种不同剂量右美托咪定对喉镜检查和插管时心率和血压的影响,喉镜检查和插管常诱发心动过速和高血压,对高血压、心肌功能不全和脑血管疾病患者尤其危险。方法:经机构伦理委员会批准,纳入76名年龄20-60岁的美国麻醉医师学会(ASA)一级和二级受试者。随机分为两组:麻醉诱导前A组(0.5µg/kg右美托咪定)和B组(1.0µg/kg右美托咪定)。血流动力学测量记录在不同时间点:给药前和给药后,插管前和插管后的间隔时间。结果:两组年龄、体重、性别分布相近。与A组相比,B组在喉镜检查和插管后始终表现出较低的血流动力学变量。此外,B组需要的异丙酚诱导剂量小于a组。在研究期间,两组均未报告明显的不良反应。结论:静脉给药1µg/kg的右美托咪定比0.5µg/kg的右美托咪定更有效地减轻喉镜检查和插管的生理反应。此外,它减少了麻醉诱导所需的异丙酚剂量。这些发现强调了高剂量右美托咪定在气道管理过程中减轻不良生理效应的潜在益处
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
Comparative study of bone mineral density, phenotypes of emphysema in patients with or without established diagnosis of chronic airway disease Knowledge, attitudes and practices of Materiovigilance among physicians in a rural tertiary care teaching hospital in Puducherry- a cross sectional study Evaluation of toxicity studies of Sesbania grandiflora leaves extracts in Wistar albino rats Clinical investigations to calculate nuchal translucency using F-LNET A cross-sectional study to assess the barriers to teleconsultations among doctors in Chennai
×
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