Comparison between dexmedetomidine and fentanyl on intubating condition to facilitate awake oral fibreoptic intubation under topical anaesthesia – A randomised controlled trial

V. Panwar, S. Krishnan, Anil Sharma
{"title":"Comparison between dexmedetomidine and fentanyl on intubating condition to facilitate awake oral fibreoptic intubation under topical anaesthesia – A randomised controlled trial","authors":"V. Panwar, S. Krishnan, Anil Sharma","doi":"10.4103/arwy.arwy_26_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Aims: Awake fibreoptic intubation (AFOI) is the standard method of airway management in the anticipated difficult airway. While many drugs have been employed for sedation, there is no single drug that can be recommended as the drug of choice. Dexmedetomidine is characterised by effects of sedation, analgesia, amnesia and lack of respiratory depression. Hence, we hypothesised that dexmedetomidine should be suitable for AFOI and compared it to the control drug fentanyl. This study assesses the level of sedation and intubating conditions using dexmedetomidine or fentanyl during awake fibreoptic orotracheal intubation. Methods: Sixty adult patients, American Society of Anaesthesiology class I and II, who required orotracheal intubation during general anaesthesia with the normal airway were randomised to receive dexmedetomidine 0.6 μg/kg (Group A) or fentanyl 1.0 μg/kg (Group B) intravenous infusion for 10 min, after topical anaesthesia to the airway. A total of 60 patients were allocated, 30 patients in each group. The primary objective was to assess the intubating conditions with dexmedetomidine compared to fentanyl. Results: The intubation score for vocal cord movement (1.57 ± 0.68 in Group A vs 1.93 ± 0.75 in Group B) and cough (1.50 ± 0.78 in Group A vs 1.90 ± 0.72 in Group B), endoscopy score (2.17 ± 0.59 in Group A vs 2.47 ± 0.69 in Group B), sedation score (4.73 ± 0.5 in Group A vs 4.47 ± 0.57 in Group B) and patient satisfaction score (1.20 ± 0.41 in Group A vs 1.47 ± 0.68 in Group B) were statistically significant in patients receiving dexmedetomidine. During the procedure, there was a statistically and clinically significant increase in heart rate of 1.5% in Group A versus 22% in Group B, and an increase in mean arterial pressure of 1.95% in Group A versus and 10.27% in the Group B. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine provided better intubation conditions than fentanyl, with greater haemodynamic stability, better sedation and greater patient satisfaction score compared to fentanyl during awake fibreoptic oral intubation.","PeriodicalId":7848,"journal":{"name":"Airway Pharmacology and Treatment","volume":"110 1","pages":"10 - 16"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Airway Pharmacology and Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/arwy.arwy_26_22","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 and Aims: Awake fibreoptic intubation (AFOI) is the standard method of airway management in the anticipated difficult airway. While many drugs have been employed for sedation, there is no single drug that can be recommended as the drug of choice. Dexmedetomidine is characterised by effects of sedation, analgesia, amnesia and lack of respiratory depression. Hence, we hypothesised that dexmedetomidine should be suitable for AFOI and compared it to the control drug fentanyl. This study assesses the level of sedation and intubating conditions using dexmedetomidine or fentanyl during awake fibreoptic orotracheal intubation. Methods: Sixty adult patients, American Society of Anaesthesiology class I and II, who required orotracheal intubation during general anaesthesia with the normal airway were randomised to receive dexmedetomidine 0.6 μg/kg (Group A) or fentanyl 1.0 μg/kg (Group B) intravenous infusion for 10 min, after topical anaesthesia to the airway. A total of 60 patients were allocated, 30 patients in each group. The primary objective was to assess the intubating conditions with dexmedetomidine compared to fentanyl. Results: The intubation score for vocal cord movement (1.57 ± 0.68 in Group A vs 1.93 ± 0.75 in Group B) and cough (1.50 ± 0.78 in Group A vs 1.90 ± 0.72 in Group B), endoscopy score (2.17 ± 0.59 in Group A vs 2.47 ± 0.69 in Group B), sedation score (4.73 ± 0.5 in Group A vs 4.47 ± 0.57 in Group B) and patient satisfaction score (1.20 ± 0.41 in Group A vs 1.47 ± 0.68 in Group B) were statistically significant in patients receiving dexmedetomidine. During the procedure, there was a statistically and clinically significant increase in heart rate of 1.5% in Group A versus 22% in Group B, and an increase in mean arterial pressure of 1.95% in Group A versus and 10.27% in the Group B. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine provided better intubation conditions than fentanyl, with greater haemodynamic stability, better sedation and greater patient satisfaction score compared to fentanyl during awake fibreoptic oral intubation.
右美托咪定和芬太尼在插管条件下促进表面麻醉下清醒口服纤维插管的比较-一项随机对照试验
背景和目的:清醒纤维插管(AFOI)是预期困难气道管理的标准方法。虽然有许多药物被用于镇静,但没有一种药物可以作为推荐的首选药物。右美托咪定具有镇静、镇痛、健忘症和无呼吸抑制作用。因此,我们假设右美托咪定应该适用于AFOI,并将其与对照药物芬太尼进行比较。本研究评估清醒时使用右美托咪定或芬太尼气管插管的镇静水平和插管条件。方法:选取60例美国麻醉学会I级和II级成人患者,在气道正常情况下全麻时需经气管插管,随机分为两组,分别在气道局部麻醉后给予右美托咪定0.6 μg/kg (A组)或芬太尼1.0 μg/kg (B组)静脉输注10 min。共分配60例患者,每组30例。主要目的是评估右美托咪定与芬太尼的插管条件。结果:插管得分为声带运动组(1.57±0.68 vs 1.93±0.75在B组)和咳嗽在A组(1.50±0.78 vs 1.90±0.72在B组),内窥镜检查得分在A组(2.17±0.59 vs 2.47±0.69在B组),镇静评分在A组(4.73±0.5 vs 4.47±0.57在B组)和病人满意度得分在A组(1.20±0.41 vs 1.47±0.68在B组)在病人接受dexmedetomidine统计学意义。在手术过程中,a组患者心率升高1.5%,B组升高22%,a组平均动脉压升高1.95%,B组升高10.27%。结论:与芬太尼相比,右美托咪定提供了更好的插管条件,在清醒的纤维纤维口服插管过程中,右美托咪定具有更好的血流动力学稳定性,更好的镇静作用和更高的患者满意度评分。
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