Publication: Comparison of the hemodynamic response of dexmedetomidine versus additional intravenous lidocaine with propofol during tracheal intubation: a randomized controlled study
3
Issued Date
2021-12-01
Resource Type
ISSN
14712253
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85118256422
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
BMC Anesthesiology. Vol.21, No.1 (2021)
Suggested Citation
Rattaphol Seangrung, Koravee Pasutharnchat, Subundit Injampa, Sirima Kumdang, Rojnarin Komonhirun Comparison of the hemodynamic response of dexmedetomidine versus additional intravenous lidocaine with propofol during tracheal intubation: a randomized controlled study. BMC Anesthesiology. Vol.21, No.1 (2021). doi:10.1186/s12871-021-01484-6 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/77492
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Comparison of the hemodynamic response of dexmedetomidine versus additional intravenous lidocaine with propofol during tracheal intubation: a randomized controlled study
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: Laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation are strong stimuli that cause a reflex increase in blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and serum catecholamine level. These can lead to myocardial infarction or cerebrovascular accidents. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine combined with propofol in attenuating the hemodynamic response following laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. Methods: This study was a randomized controlled study and adhered to the CONSORT guidelines. One-hundred and six patients undergoing elective general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation were divided randomly into two groups. Group D received dexmedetomidine (1 μg kg− 1) before induction. Group LP received lidocaine (1.5 mg kg− 1) before induction with additional propofol (0.5 mg kg− 1) before laryngoscopy. The primary endpoint was hemodynamic including systolic (S) BP, diastolic (D) BP, mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and HR measured before and after induction and ≤ 10 min after intubation. Secondary outcome was complications/adverse effects. Results: After induction, the mean SBP, DBP, MAP and HR decreased significantly from baseline in both groups except for mean HR in group LP at 1 min. Differences in mean values of SBP, DBP, and MAP were significantly lower in group D after intubation at 4–10 min (P < 0.05). Group LP had a non-inferior effect in blunting BP at all time points except 1 and 2 min after induction, and 2 min after intubation. The mean difference in HR in group D was significantly lower than that in group LP at all time points (P < 0.001). Group D had significantly more episodes of bradycardia (18.87% vs. 0%, P = 0.001) and hypotension (52.83% vs. 15.09%, P < 0.001) than did group LP. Conclusion: Lidocaine (1.5 mg kg− 1) with additional propofol (0.5 mg kg− 1) had a non-inferior effect compared with dexmedetomidine (1 μg kg− 1) in attenuating the hemodynamic response following laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation, and had fewer adverse effects. Trial registration: Thai Clinical Trial Registry, (TRTC20190206002). Retrospectively registered 4 February 2019.