鼻内瑞芬太尼与利多卡因对喉罩气道插入和心血管反应的促进作用:一项双盲临床试验研究。

Hamidreza Shetabi, Hossein Mahjobipoor, Mona Bahmani
{"title":"鼻内瑞芬太尼与利多卡因对喉罩气道插入和心血管反应的促进作用:一项双盲临床试验研究。","authors":"Hamidreza Shetabi, Hossein Mahjobipoor, Mona Bahmani","doi":"10.30476/BEAT.2024.100861.1480","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to assess and compare the effects of intranasal administration of lidocaine and remifentanil on the condition of LMA insertion and cardiovascular response.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From March 2019 to March 2020, this double-blind randomized clinical trial study was conducted on 60 patients, who underwent general anesthesia with LMA insertion at Faiz Hospital, Isfahan, Iran. After induction of anesthesia and before placing the laryngeal mask, the first group received remifentanil 1 μg/Kg, the second group received lidocaine 2% 1 mg/Kg, and the third group received normal saline with the same volume intranasally. The conditions of LMA insertion and hemodynamic changes that occurred during its insertion were investigated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In terms of demographics characteristics (<i>p</i>>0.05), success in placing the LMA on the first try (<i>p</i>=0.73), number of attempts to insert LMA (<i>p</i>=0.61), performance of LMA (<i>p</i>=0.73), need for additional propofol (<i>p</i>=0.53), frequency of gagging (<i>p</i>=0.53), cough (<i>p</i>=0.15) p), and laryngospasm (<i>p</i>=0.99) did not differ significantly. In the remifentanil group, the cardiovascular response to LMA injection was less than that of the lidocaine group. Moreover, both groups were lower than the saline group, but no significant difference was observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In facilitating LMA insertion, the effect of intranasal remifentanil was comparable to intranasal lidocaine. Intranasal remifentanil was somewhat more effective than intranasal lidocaine in weakening the cardiovascular response to LMA insertion, but it did not outperform lidocaine.</p>","PeriodicalId":9333,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of emergency and trauma","volume":"12 1","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11057452/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of Intranasal Remifentanil versus Lidocaine on Facilitation of Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion and Cardiovascular Response: A Double-blind Clinical Trial Study.\",\"authors\":\"Hamidreza Shetabi, Hossein Mahjobipoor, Mona Bahmani\",\"doi\":\"10.30476/BEAT.2024.100861.1480\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to assess and compare the effects of intranasal administration of lidocaine and remifentanil on the condition of LMA insertion and cardiovascular response.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From March 2019 to March 2020, this double-blind randomized clinical trial study was conducted on 60 patients, who underwent general anesthesia with LMA insertion at Faiz Hospital, Isfahan, Iran. After induction of anesthesia and before placing the laryngeal mask, the first group received remifentanil 1 μg/Kg, the second group received lidocaine 2% 1 mg/Kg, and the third group received normal saline with the same volume intranasally. The conditions of LMA insertion and hemodynamic changes that occurred during its insertion were investigated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In terms of demographics characteristics (<i>p</i>>0.05), success in placing the LMA on the first try (<i>p</i>=0.73), number of attempts to insert LMA (<i>p</i>=0.61), performance of LMA (<i>p</i>=0.73), need for additional propofol (<i>p</i>=0.53), frequency of gagging (<i>p</i>=0.53), cough (<i>p</i>=0.15) p), and laryngospasm (<i>p</i>=0.99) did not differ significantly. In the remifentanil group, the cardiovascular response to LMA injection was less than that of the lidocaine group. Moreover, both groups were lower than the saline group, but no significant difference was observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In facilitating LMA insertion, the effect of intranasal remifentanil was comparable to intranasal lidocaine. Intranasal remifentanil was somewhat more effective than intranasal lidocaine in weakening the cardiovascular response to LMA insertion, but it did not outperform lidocaine.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of emergency and trauma\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"1-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11057452/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of emergency and trauma\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30476/BEAT.2024.100861.1480\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of emergency and trauma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30476/BEAT.2024.100861.1480","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究旨在评估和比较利多卡因和瑞芬太尼鼻内给药对 LMA 插入情况和心血管反应的影响:2019年3月至2020年3月,这项双盲随机临床试验研究在伊朗伊斯法罕法伊兹医院对60名患者进行了全身麻醉并插入LMA。在麻醉诱导后和放置喉罩前,第一组接受瑞芬太尼 1 μg/Kg,第二组接受 2% 利多卡因 1 mg/Kg,第三组鼻腔内接受相同容量的生理盐水。研究了插入 LMA 的条件和插入过程中发生的血流动力学变化:在人口统计学特征(P>0.05)、首次置入 LMA 的成功率(P=0.73)、置入 LMA 的尝试次数(P=0.61)、LMA 的性能(P=0.73)、是否需要额外的异丙酚(P=0.53)、塞牙频率(P=0.53)、咳嗽(P=0.15)P)和喉痉挛(P=0.99)方面没有显著差异。瑞芬太尼组对 LMA 注射的心血管反应低于利多卡因组。此外,两组均低于生理盐水组,但未观察到显著差异:结论:在促进 LMA 插入方面,鼻内注射瑞芬太尼的效果与鼻内注射利多卡因相当。在减弱插入 LMA 时的心血管反应方面,鼻内注射瑞芬太尼比鼻内注射利多卡因更有效,但并不优于利多卡因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Effect of Intranasal Remifentanil versus Lidocaine on Facilitation of Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion and Cardiovascular Response: A Double-blind Clinical Trial Study.

Objective: This study aimed to assess and compare the effects of intranasal administration of lidocaine and remifentanil on the condition of LMA insertion and cardiovascular response.

Methods: From March 2019 to March 2020, this double-blind randomized clinical trial study was conducted on 60 patients, who underwent general anesthesia with LMA insertion at Faiz Hospital, Isfahan, Iran. After induction of anesthesia and before placing the laryngeal mask, the first group received remifentanil 1 μg/Kg, the second group received lidocaine 2% 1 mg/Kg, and the third group received normal saline with the same volume intranasally. The conditions of LMA insertion and hemodynamic changes that occurred during its insertion were investigated.

Results: In terms of demographics characteristics (p>0.05), success in placing the LMA on the first try (p=0.73), number of attempts to insert LMA (p=0.61), performance of LMA (p=0.73), need for additional propofol (p=0.53), frequency of gagging (p=0.53), cough (p=0.15) p), and laryngospasm (p=0.99) did not differ significantly. In the remifentanil group, the cardiovascular response to LMA injection was less than that of the lidocaine group. Moreover, both groups were lower than the saline group, but no significant difference was observed.

Conclusion: In facilitating LMA insertion, the effect of intranasal remifentanil was comparable to intranasal lidocaine. Intranasal remifentanil was somewhat more effective than intranasal lidocaine in weakening the cardiovascular response to LMA insertion, but it did not outperform lidocaine.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: BEAT: Bulletin of Emergency And Trauma is an international, peer-reviewed, quarterly journal coping with original research contributing to the field of emergency medicine and trauma. BEAT is the official journal of the Trauma Research Center (TRC) of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS), Hungarian Trauma Society (HTS) and Lusitanian Association for Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ALTEC/LATES) aiming to be a publication of international repute that serves as a medium for dissemination and exchange of scientific knowledge in the emergency medicine and trauma. The aim of BEAT is to publish original research focusing on practicing and training of emergency medicine and trauma to publish peer-reviewed articles of current international interest in the form of original articles, brief communications, reviews, case reports, clinical images, and letters.
期刊最新文献
An Epidemiological Investigation on Patients with Non-traumatic Subarachnoid Hemorrhage from 2010 to 2020. A Novel Skin Incision for Posterior Fossa Midline and Paramedian Lesions: A Technical Note and Case Series. Surgical Treatment versus Conservative Management of Splenic Rupture: Outcomes and Risk Factors. Effect of Intranasal Remifentanil versus Lidocaine on Facilitation of Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion and Cardiovascular Response: A Double-blind Clinical Trial Study. Ten-year Causes of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis in Patients Referred to Ghaem Hospital from 2009 to 2019.
×
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