Comparison of hemodynamic response of small dose ketamine versus midazolam as co- induction agent to propofol: a randomized double blind interventional study

Sunil Chauhan, S. Kothari, Nitish Chaudhary, Kiwi Mantan
{"title":"Comparison of hemodynamic response of small dose ketamine versus midazolam as co- induction agent to propofol: a randomized double blind interventional study","authors":"Sunil Chauhan, S. Kothari, Nitish Chaudhary, Kiwi Mantan","doi":"10.18231/j.joapr.2022.11.2.12.19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Anaesthesiology Department at Sawai Man Singh Medical College carried out this study. For this, 60 ASA grade I and II patients undergoing planned general surgery were randomly assigned into two groups of 30 each, with Group KP (n=30) receiving injections of ketamine at 0.3 mg/kg and Group MP receiving injections of midozolam at 0.03 mg/kg and Propofol I.V. The main goal of the study was to find the best induction by analysing changes in hemodynamic indicators from baseline to various time points after induction. On the basis of the necessary induction dose and hemodynamic characteristics, the groups were contrasted. The strategy used was to present the categorical data as percentages and compare them between groups using the Chi square test. The mean and standard deviation of the quantitative data were displayed, and students' t-tests were used to compare them. According to the study described above, group MP saw a greater fluctuation in heart rate than did group KP, whose heart rate remained more constant during the anaesthetic time. Group MP's blood pressure dropped more quickly after induction compared to group KP. The ketamine group's blood pressure remained the most stable out of all the groups. Apnea, pain upon injection, and uncontrollable movements were absent in the KP group. Of all the groups, the ketamine-propofol group required the least induction dose. As a result, we came to the conclusion that pretreatment with ketamine at a dose of 0.3 mg/kg results in better hemodynamic stability and requires less propofol for induction than midazolam does. The ketamine-propofol group is therefore the best of the two groups, making it the optimum induction agent","PeriodicalId":15232,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Research","volume":"1 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.2022.11.2.12.19","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

The Anaesthesiology Department at Sawai Man Singh Medical College carried out this study. For this, 60 ASA grade I and II patients undergoing planned general surgery were randomly assigned into two groups of 30 each, with Group KP (n=30) receiving injections of ketamine at 0.3 mg/kg and Group MP receiving injections of midozolam at 0.03 mg/kg and Propofol I.V. The main goal of the study was to find the best induction by analysing changes in hemodynamic indicators from baseline to various time points after induction. On the basis of the necessary induction dose and hemodynamic characteristics, the groups were contrasted. The strategy used was to present the categorical data as percentages and compare them between groups using the Chi square test. The mean and standard deviation of the quantitative data were displayed, and students' t-tests were used to compare them. According to the study described above, group MP saw a greater fluctuation in heart rate than did group KP, whose heart rate remained more constant during the anaesthetic time. Group MP's blood pressure dropped more quickly after induction compared to group KP. The ketamine group's blood pressure remained the most stable out of all the groups. Apnea, pain upon injection, and uncontrollable movements were absent in the KP group. Of all the groups, the ketamine-propofol group required the least induction dose. As a result, we came to the conclusion that pretreatment with ketamine at a dose of 0.3 mg/kg results in better hemodynamic stability and requires less propofol for induction than midazolam does. The ketamine-propofol group is therefore the best of the two groups, making it the optimum induction agent
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
小剂量氯胺酮与咪达唑仑作为异丙酚共诱导剂的血流动力学反应比较:一项随机双盲介入研究
Sawai Man Singh医学院麻醉科进行了这项研究。为此,将60例ASA I级和II级计划行普外科手术的患者随机分为两组,每组30例,KP组(n=30)注射氯胺酮0.3 mg/kg, MP组(n=30)注射咪多唑仑0.03 mg/kg并静脉注射异丙酚。本研究的主要目的是通过分析诱导后血液动力学指标从基线到各时间点的变化,寻找最佳诱导方式。根据必要的诱导剂量和血流动力学特性,对两组进行对比。使用的策略是将分类数据以百分比表示,并使用卡方检验在组间进行比较。显示定量数据的均值和标准差,并采用学生t检验进行比较。根据上述研究,MP组的心率波动比KP组更大,KP组的心率在麻醉时间内保持不变。与KP组相比,MP组诱导后血压下降更快。氯胺酮组的血压是所有组中最稳定的。KP组无呼吸暂停、注射时疼痛、无法控制的运动。在所有组中,氯胺酮-异丙酚组需要最少的诱导剂量。因此,我们得出结论,与咪达唑仑相比,0.3 mg/kg剂量的氯胺酮预处理具有更好的血流动力学稳定性,并且需要更少的异丙酚诱导。因此,氯胺酮-异丙酚组是两组中最好的,使其成为最佳的诱导剂
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