A comparative study of haemodynamic response with laryngoscopic endotracheal intubation and laryngeal mask airway insertion in hypertensive patients at tertiary care hospital

Shreya Sharma, Beula Govindan, A. Thavamani
{"title":"A comparative study of haemodynamic response with laryngoscopic endotracheal intubation and laryngeal mask airway insertion in hypertensive patients at tertiary care hospital","authors":"Shreya Sharma, Beula Govindan, A. Thavamani","doi":"10.26611/101512217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND: \nThe hemodynamic response associated with laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation may be harmful to certain patients .The laryngeal mask airway avoids the need for laryngoscopy and provides positive pressure ventilation of the lungs in appropriate patients. \nAIMS AND OBJECTIVES: \nThis study compares the hemodynamic response of laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation to that of laryngeal mask airway insertion in hypertensive patients. \nMETHODS: \n60 Hypertensive patients between 40 to 60 years of either gender of ASA Grade II were randomly allotted to one of the groups of 30 each, group ET and group LMA .LMA insertion or tracheal intubation was performed after induction of anesthesia with Thiopentone and muscle relaxation with succinyl choline. Anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane and nitrous oxide, oxygen the heart rate, systolic BP, diastolic BP, mean arterial pressure and rate pressure product were measured after induction and immediately after insertion / intubation and then after 1, 3, 5 minutes. \nRESULTS: \nThere was very highly significant difference (p < 0.000) in mean increase in heart rate (38.23% in group ET versus 28.26% in group LMA). The increase in arterial pressure were also significant. The systolic BP increased 40.16% in group ET compared with 37.60% in group LMA (p < 0.000). The diastolic BP was also seen increasing by 22.73% and 14.23% in group ET and group LMA respectively. \nThe MAP and RPP values were maximum after airway instrumentation however we found that values after LMA insertion were significantly lower when compared to tracheal intubation for the first 3 minutes. \nINTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSION: \nThe data suggest a similar, but attenuated pattern of response associated with mask insertion in comparison to laryngoscopy and intubation .Hence use of LMA may therefore offer some advantages over tracheal intubation in anesthetic management of patients where avoidance of pressure response is of particular concern.","PeriodicalId":118187,"journal":{"name":"MedPulse International Journal of Anesthesology","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MedPulse International Journal of Anesthesology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26611/101512217","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: The hemodynamic response associated with laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation may be harmful to certain patients .The laryngeal mask airway avoids the need for laryngoscopy and provides positive pressure ventilation of the lungs in appropriate patients. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study compares the hemodynamic response of laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation to that of laryngeal mask airway insertion in hypertensive patients. METHODS: 60 Hypertensive patients between 40 to 60 years of either gender of ASA Grade II were randomly allotted to one of the groups of 30 each, group ET and group LMA .LMA insertion or tracheal intubation was performed after induction of anesthesia with Thiopentone and muscle relaxation with succinyl choline. Anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane and nitrous oxide, oxygen the heart rate, systolic BP, diastolic BP, mean arterial pressure and rate pressure product were measured after induction and immediately after insertion / intubation and then after 1, 3, 5 minutes. RESULTS: There was very highly significant difference (p < 0.000) in mean increase in heart rate (38.23% in group ET versus 28.26% in group LMA). The increase in arterial pressure were also significant. The systolic BP increased 40.16% in group ET compared with 37.60% in group LMA (p < 0.000). The diastolic BP was also seen increasing by 22.73% and 14.23% in group ET and group LMA respectively. The MAP and RPP values were maximum after airway instrumentation however we found that values after LMA insertion were significantly lower when compared to tracheal intubation for the first 3 minutes. INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSION: The data suggest a similar, but attenuated pattern of response associated with mask insertion in comparison to laryngoscopy and intubation .Hence use of LMA may therefore offer some advantages over tracheal intubation in anesthetic management of patients where avoidance of pressure response is of particular concern.
三级医院高血压患者经喉镜气管内插管与喉罩气道插入血流动力学反应的比较研究
背景:与喉镜检查和气管插管相关的血流动力学反应可能对某些患者有害。喉罩气道避免了喉镜检查的需要,并在适当的患者中提供肺正压通气。目的和目的:本研究比较了高血压患者喉镜和气管插管与喉罩气道插入的血流动力学反应。方法:60例40 ~ 60岁的ASAⅱ级高血压患者,男女均可,随机分为ET组和LMA组,每组30例。在硫喷妥酮诱导麻醉和琥珀酰胆碱肌肉松弛后,行LMA插入或气管插管。七氟醚和氧化亚氮维持麻醉,氧诱导后、插入/插管后、1、3、5分钟后分别测量心率、收缩压、舒张压、平均动脉压和心率压积。结果:ET组和LMA组的平均心率升高率分别为38.23%和28.26%,差异有极显著性意义(p < 0.000)。动脉压升高也很明显。ET组收缩压升高40.16%,LMA组收缩压升高37.60% (p < 0.000)。ET组和LMA组舒张压分别升高22.73%和14.23%。MAP和RPP值在气管插管后最大,但我们发现LMA插入后的值与气管插管前3分钟相比显着降低。解释和结论:数据表明,与喉镜和插管相比,面罩插入相关的反应模式相似,但较弱。因此,在特别关注避免压力反应的患者的麻醉管理中,使用LMA可能比气管插管有一些优势。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信