4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Comparison of different doses of remifentanil on the cardiovascular response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
Volume 84, Issue 1, Pages 100-102

Publisher

PROF SCI PUBL
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bja.a013362

Keywords

analgesics opioid, remifentanil; premedication, glycopyrrolate; intubation tracheal, responses; cardiovascular system, effects

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Wa have compared three bolus and infusion regimens of remifentanil on the cardiovascular response to laryngoscopy and orotracheal intubation in three groups of 20 ASA I-II female patients, in a randomized, double-blind study. Patients in group I received glycopyrrolate 200 mu g i.v. followed by a bolus dose of remifentanil 1 mu g kg(-1) over 30 s and an infusion of remifentanil at a rate of 0.5 mu g kg(-1) min(-1). The other patients received remifentanil 0.5 mu g kg(-1) over 30 s and an infusion of 0.25 mu g kg(-1) min(-1) with (group 2) or without (group 3) pretreatment with glycopyrrolate 200 mu g. All patients then received a sleep dose of propofol, rocuronium 0.6 mg kg(-1) and 1% isoflurane with 67% nitrous oxide in oxygen. Laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation were performed 3 min later. Heart rate and arterial pressure were recorded at 1-min intervals from before induction of anaesthesia until 5 min after intubation. Baseline heart rate was similar in all groups, but decreased in group 3 (no glycopyrrolate) after induction and remained significantly lower after intubation compared with the other groups (P<0.05). Heart rate and arterial pressure increased slightly after intubation in each group but there were no significant differences in mean arterial pressure between groups at any time. The incidence of bradycardia (one patient in group 2) and hypotension (two patients in groups 1 and 2 and three patients in group 3) was low.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available