在口腔颌面部和口腔恶性肿瘤手术患者的清醒纤支镜鼻气管插管中使用不同剂量右美托咪定的评估:随机双盲研究

IF 2.9 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Sanya Arora, B. Govardhane, Vanchula Srinivasan, Gayatri Karandikar
{"title":"在口腔颌面部和口腔恶性肿瘤手术患者的清醒纤支镜鼻气管插管中使用不同剂量右美托咪定的评估:随机双盲研究","authors":"Sanya Arora, B. Govardhane, Vanchula Srinivasan, Gayatri Karandikar","doi":"10.4103/ija.ija_1004_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n In patients undergoing cancer surgeries with anticipated difficult airway, awake fibreoptic nasotracheal intubation (AFONI) is critical for securing the airway. However, different doses of dexmedetomidine (DEX) are yet to be evaluated in these patients. Thus, we compared three doses of DEX for AFONI in patients undergoing oromaxillofacial and oral malignancy surgeries.\n \n \n \n In this randomised, double-blind study, 90 patients aged 18–60 years of either gender, with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II, and undergoing elective oromaxillofacial and oral malignancy surgeries were randomised to three groups: Group D1 (0.5 µg/kg DEX), Group D2 (1 µg/kg DEX), and Group D3 (1.5 µg/kg DEX). The primary outcome measure was the airway obstruction score. Secondary outcome measures were intubation scores (including vocal movement, coughing, and limb movements) and a 5-point fibreoptic intubation comfort score. Sedation was assessed using the Ramsay sedation score (RSS). One-way ANOVA and Chi-square test were used to assess the association between quantitative and qualitative variables, respectively. A P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.\n \n \n \n The airway obstruction score was comparable between the groups (P = 0.78). Similarly, vocal movement (P = 0.15), coughing (P = 0.31), limb movement (P = 0.51), and 5-point fibreoptic intubation comfort score (P = 0.49) did not differ between the groups. The mean RSS was significantly greater in Group D3 than in Groups D1 and D2 (P = 0.001).\n \n \n \n In combination with topical spray and airway block, all three doses of DEX resulted in comparable airway obstruction scores and thus provided favourable conditions for AFONI.\n","PeriodicalId":13339,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of different doses of dexmedetomidine for awake fibreoptic nasotracheal intubation in patients undergoing oromaxillofacial and oral malignancy surgeries: A randomised, double-blind study\",\"authors\":\"Sanya Arora, B. Govardhane, Vanchula Srinivasan, Gayatri Karandikar\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ija.ija_1004_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n In patients undergoing cancer surgeries with anticipated difficult airway, awake fibreoptic nasotracheal intubation (AFONI) is critical for securing the airway. However, different doses of dexmedetomidine (DEX) are yet to be evaluated in these patients. Thus, we compared three doses of DEX for AFONI in patients undergoing oromaxillofacial and oral malignancy surgeries.\\n \\n \\n \\n In this randomised, double-blind study, 90 patients aged 18–60 years of either gender, with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II, and undergoing elective oromaxillofacial and oral malignancy surgeries were randomised to three groups: Group D1 (0.5 µg/kg DEX), Group D2 (1 µg/kg DEX), and Group D3 (1.5 µg/kg DEX). The primary outcome measure was the airway obstruction score. Secondary outcome measures were intubation scores (including vocal movement, coughing, and limb movements) and a 5-point fibreoptic intubation comfort score. Sedation was assessed using the Ramsay sedation score (RSS). One-way ANOVA and Chi-square test were used to assess the association between quantitative and qualitative variables, respectively. A P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.\\n \\n \\n \\n The airway obstruction score was comparable between the groups (P = 0.78). Similarly, vocal movement (P = 0.15), coughing (P = 0.31), limb movement (P = 0.51), and 5-point fibreoptic intubation comfort score (P = 0.49) did not differ between the groups. The mean RSS was significantly greater in Group D3 than in Groups D1 and D2 (P = 0.001).\\n \\n \\n \\n In combination with topical spray and airway block, all three doses of DEX resulted in comparable airway obstruction scores and thus provided favourable conditions for AFONI.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":13339,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_1004_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_1004_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对于预计气道困难的癌症手术患者来说,清醒纤支镜鼻气管插管(AFONI)是确保气道安全的关键。然而,在这些患者中使用不同剂量的右美托咪定(DEX)尚待评估。因此,我们比较了三种剂量的右美托咪定用于口腔颌面部和口腔恶性肿瘤手术患者的 AFONI。 在这项随机双盲研究中,90 名年龄在 18-60 岁之间、性别不限、美国麻醉医师协会体能状态 I/II 级、正在接受择期颌面部和口腔恶性肿瘤手术的患者被随机分为三组:D1组(0.5 µg/kg DEX)、D2组(1 µg/kg DEX)和D3组(1.5 µg/kg DEX)。主要结果指标为气道阻塞评分。次要结果指标为插管评分(包括发声、咳嗽和肢体运动)和 5 分光纤插管舒适度评分。镇静采用拉姆塞镇静评分(RSS)进行评估。单因素方差分析和卡方检验分别用于评估定量变量和定性变量之间的关联。P值小于0.05被认为具有统计学意义。 两组患者的气道阻塞评分相当(P = 0.78)。同样,声带运动(P = 0.15)、咳嗽(P = 0.31)、肢体运动(P = 0.51)和 5 点光纤插管舒适度评分(P = 0.49)在组间也无差异。D3 组的平均 RSS 明显高于 D1 和 D2 组(P = 0.001)。 结合局部喷雾和气道阻塞,所有三种剂量的 DEX 均可获得相当的气道阻塞评分,从而为 AFONI 提供了有利条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of different doses of dexmedetomidine for awake fibreoptic nasotracheal intubation in patients undergoing oromaxillofacial and oral malignancy surgeries: A randomised, double-blind study
In patients undergoing cancer surgeries with anticipated difficult airway, awake fibreoptic nasotracheal intubation (AFONI) is critical for securing the airway. However, different doses of dexmedetomidine (DEX) are yet to be evaluated in these patients. Thus, we compared three doses of DEX for AFONI in patients undergoing oromaxillofacial and oral malignancy surgeries. In this randomised, double-blind study, 90 patients aged 18–60 years of either gender, with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II, and undergoing elective oromaxillofacial and oral malignancy surgeries were randomised to three groups: Group D1 (0.5 µg/kg DEX), Group D2 (1 µg/kg DEX), and Group D3 (1.5 µg/kg DEX). The primary outcome measure was the airway obstruction score. Secondary outcome measures were intubation scores (including vocal movement, coughing, and limb movements) and a 5-point fibreoptic intubation comfort score. Sedation was assessed using the Ramsay sedation score (RSS). One-way ANOVA and Chi-square test were used to assess the association between quantitative and qualitative variables, respectively. A P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. The airway obstruction score was comparable between the groups (P = 0.78). Similarly, vocal movement (P = 0.15), coughing (P = 0.31), limb movement (P = 0.51), and 5-point fibreoptic intubation comfort score (P = 0.49) did not differ between the groups. The mean RSS was significantly greater in Group D3 than in Groups D1 and D2 (P = 0.001). In combination with topical spray and airway block, all three doses of DEX resulted in comparable airway obstruction scores and thus provided favourable conditions for AFONI.
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
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
44.80%
发文量
210
审稿时长
36 weeks
×
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