Yıl: 2018 Cilt: 46 Sayı: 6 Sayfa Aralığı: 434 - 440 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.5152/TJAR.2018.59265 İndeks Tarihi: 25-09-2019

Haemodynamic Response to Four Different Laryngoscopes

Öz:
Objective: In this prospective randomized study, we aimed to evaluate the effect of tracheal intubation with four different laryngoscopes[Macintosh direct laryngoscope-classic laryngoscope (CL), McCoy (MC), C-Mac video-laryngoscope (CM) and McGrath video-laryngoscope(MG)] on haemodynamic responses in patients with a normal airway.Methods: One hundred and sixty patients were included. Succeeding haemodynamic measurements were performed immediately afterintubation (T2) and for 5 min with 1-min intervals (T3-T4-T5-T6-T7). The primary outcome was the heart rate (HR) and systolicblood pressure (SBP) change triggered by the four different laryngoscopes. The intubation time, the number of intubation attempts,need for stylet or additional manipulation, glottic view and traumatic complications caused by intubation procedure were recorded assecondary outcomes.Results: HR values significantly increased with the completion of laryngoscopy and intubation at T2 for the CL, MC and CM groups.Lesser fluctuation in HR and SBP was observed in the MG group. Intubation time was significantly shorter in the MG group (p<0.001).There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding the number of intubation attempts, need for stylette andglottic view. Fewer patients in the MG and CM groups experienced a moderate and severe sore throat than in the other two groups.Shorter intubation time and lesser sore throat incidence were observed in the MG group.Conclusion: MG offers less haemodynamic stimulation than CL, MC, and CM. Our findings showed that tracheal intubation with MGis advantageous in preventing cardiovascular stress responses with short intubation time and less sore throat incidence.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Anestezi
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 1. Barak M, Ziser A, Greenberg A. Hemodynamic and catecholamine response to tracheal intubation: direct laryngoscopy compared with fiberoptic intubation. J Clin Anesth 2003; 15: 132-6. [CrossRef ]
  • 2. Derbyshire DR, Chmielewski A, Fell D, Vater M, Achola K, Smith G. Plasma catecholamine responses to tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth 1983; 55: 855-60. [CrossRef ]
  • 3. Fox EJ, Sklar GS, Hill CH, Villanueva R, King BD. Complications related the pressor response to endotracheal intubation. Anesthesiology 1977; 47: 524-25. [CrossRef ]
  • 4. Stone DJ, Gal T.J. Airway Management. In Miller RD ed. Anesthesia. 5th ed. Churchill Livingstone New York 2000; 39: 1444-5.
  • 5. Stout DM, Bishop MS, Dwersteg JF, Cullen BF. Correlation of endotracheal tube size with sore throat and hoarseness following general anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1987; 76: 419-21. [CrossRef ]
  • 6. Kaplan JD, Schuster DP. Physiologic consequences of tracheal intubation. Clin Chest Med 1991; 12: 425-32.
  • 7. Gravlee GP, Ramsey FM, Roy RC, Angert KC, Rogers AT, Pauca AL. Rapid administration of a narcotic and neuromuscular blocker: a hemodynamic comparison of fentanyl, sufentanil, pancuronium, and vecuronium. Anesth Analg 1988; 67: 39-47. [CrossRef ]
  • 8. McCoy EP, Mirakhur RK, McCloskey BV. A comparison of the stress response to laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia 1995; 50: 943- 6. [CrossRef ]
  • 9. Tewari P, Gupta D, Kumar A, Singh U. Opioid sparing during endotracheal intubation using McCoy laryngoscope in neurosurgical patients: The comparison of haemodynamic changes with Macintosh blade in a randomized trial. J Postgrad Med 2005; 51: 260-5.
  • 10. Haidry MA, Khan FA. Comparison of hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation with Macintosh and McCoy laryngoscopes. J. Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2013; 29: 196-9.
  • 11. Han TS, Kin JA, Park Ng, Lee SM, Cho Hs, Chung IS. A comparison of the effects of different type of laryngoscope on hemodynamics. McCoy versus the Macintosh blade. Korean J Anesthesiol 1999; 37: 398-41. [CrossRef ]
  • 12. Shimoda O, Ikuta Y, Isayama S, Sakamoto M, Terasaki H. Skin vasomotor reflex induced by laryngoscopy: Comparison of the McCoy and Macintosh blades. Br J Anaesth 1997; 79: 714-8. [CrossRef ]
  • 13. Takahashi S, Mizutani T, Miyabe M, Toyooka H. Hemodynamic Responses to Tracheal Intubation with Laryngoscope Versus Lightwand Intubating Device (Trachlight®) in Adults with Normal Airway. Anesthesia & Analgesia 2002; 95: 480-4. [CrossRef ]
  • 14. Xue FS, Zhang GH, Li XY, Sun HT, Li P, Li CW, et al. Comparison of hemodynamic responses to orotracheal intubation with the GlideScope videolaryngoscope and the Macintosh direct laryngoscope. J Clin Anesth 2007; 19: 245-50. [CrossRef ]
  • 15. Tempe DK, Chaudhary K, Diwakar A, Datt V, Virmani S, Tomar AS, et al. Comparison of hemodynamic responses to laryngoscopy and intubation with Truview PCDTM, McGrath and Macintosh laryngoscope in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: A randomized prospective study. Ann Card Anaesth 2016; 19: 68-75. [CrossRef ]
  • 16. Siddiqui N, Katznelson R, Friedman Z. Heart rate/blood pressure response and airway morbidity following tracheal intubation with direct laryngoscopy, GlideScope and Trachlight: a randomized control trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2009; 26: 740-5. [CrossRef ]
  • 17. Stoelting RK. Circulatory changes during direct laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation; influence of duration of laryngosco-py with or without prior lidocaine. Anesthesiology 1977; 47: 3814. [CrossRef ]
  • 18. Shin M, Bai SJ, Lee KY, Oh E, Kim HJ. Comparing Mc- GRATH® MAC, C-MAC®, and Macintosh Laryngoscopes Operated by Medical Students: A Randomized, Crossover, Manikin Study. Biomed Res Int 2016; 2016: 8943931. [CrossRef ]
  • 19. Kumar N, Lambar K, Ratra M. A randomized study of Macintosh and Truview EVO2 laryngoscopes in the intubation scenario: Comparison. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2010; 26: 64-8.
APA ALTUN BİNGÖL D, ali a, ÇAMCI A, ÖZONUR A, ÖZKAN SEYHAN T (2018). Haemodynamic Response to Four Different Laryngoscopes. , 434 - 440. 10.5152/TJAR.2018.59265
Chicago ALTUN BİNGÖL DEMET,ali achmet,ÇAMCI ALİ EMRE,ÖZONUR Anıl,ÖZKAN SEYHAN Tülay Haemodynamic Response to Four Different Laryngoscopes. (2018): 434 - 440. 10.5152/TJAR.2018.59265
MLA ALTUN BİNGÖL DEMET,ali achmet,ÇAMCI ALİ EMRE,ÖZONUR Anıl,ÖZKAN SEYHAN Tülay Haemodynamic Response to Four Different Laryngoscopes. , 2018, ss.434 - 440. 10.5152/TJAR.2018.59265
AMA ALTUN BİNGÖL D,ali a,ÇAMCI A,ÖZONUR A,ÖZKAN SEYHAN T Haemodynamic Response to Four Different Laryngoscopes. . 2018; 434 - 440. 10.5152/TJAR.2018.59265
Vancouver ALTUN BİNGÖL D,ali a,ÇAMCI A,ÖZONUR A,ÖZKAN SEYHAN T Haemodynamic Response to Four Different Laryngoscopes. . 2018; 434 - 440. 10.5152/TJAR.2018.59265
IEEE ALTUN BİNGÖL D,ali a,ÇAMCI A,ÖZONUR A,ÖZKAN SEYHAN T "Haemodynamic Response to Four Different Laryngoscopes." , ss.434 - 440, 2018. 10.5152/TJAR.2018.59265
ISNAD ALTUN BİNGÖL, DEMET vd. "Haemodynamic Response to Four Different Laryngoscopes". (2018), 434-440. https://doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.2018.59265
APA ALTUN BİNGÖL D, ali a, ÇAMCI A, ÖZONUR A, ÖZKAN SEYHAN T (2018). Haemodynamic Response to Four Different Laryngoscopes. Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, 46(6), 434 - 440. 10.5152/TJAR.2018.59265
Chicago ALTUN BİNGÖL DEMET,ali achmet,ÇAMCI ALİ EMRE,ÖZONUR Anıl,ÖZKAN SEYHAN Tülay Haemodynamic Response to Four Different Laryngoscopes. Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation 46, no.6 (2018): 434 - 440. 10.5152/TJAR.2018.59265
MLA ALTUN BİNGÖL DEMET,ali achmet,ÇAMCI ALİ EMRE,ÖZONUR Anıl,ÖZKAN SEYHAN Tülay Haemodynamic Response to Four Different Laryngoscopes. Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, vol.46, no.6, 2018, ss.434 - 440. 10.5152/TJAR.2018.59265
AMA ALTUN BİNGÖL D,ali a,ÇAMCI A,ÖZONUR A,ÖZKAN SEYHAN T Haemodynamic Response to Four Different Laryngoscopes. Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation. 2018; 46(6): 434 - 440. 10.5152/TJAR.2018.59265
Vancouver ALTUN BİNGÖL D,ali a,ÇAMCI A,ÖZONUR A,ÖZKAN SEYHAN T Haemodynamic Response to Four Different Laryngoscopes. Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation. 2018; 46(6): 434 - 440. 10.5152/TJAR.2018.59265
IEEE ALTUN BİNGÖL D,ali a,ÇAMCI A,ÖZONUR A,ÖZKAN SEYHAN T "Haemodynamic Response to Four Different Laryngoscopes." Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, 46, ss.434 - 440, 2018. 10.5152/TJAR.2018.59265
ISNAD ALTUN BİNGÖL, DEMET vd. "Haemodynamic Response to Four Different Laryngoscopes". Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation 46/6 (2018), 434-440. https://doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.2018.59265