Literature DB >> 26072085

Comparison of cardiac output and hemodynamic responses of intubation among different videolaryngoscopies in normotensive and hypertensive patients.

Amro Faez Abdelgawad1,2, Qin-Fang Shi1, Mohamed Abo Halawa3, Zhi-Lin Wu1, Zhou-Yang Wu1, Xiang-Dong Chen1, Shang-Long Yao4.   

Abstract

Tracheal intubation with Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC) might result in severe cardiovascular complications. The results of conducted studies investigating the effects of videolaryngoscopies on hemodynamic response of tracheal intubation are conflicting. We know little about the effects of videolaryngoscopies on cardiac output changes during tracheal intubation. We compared cardiac output (COP) and hemodynamic responses in normal blood pressure (n=60) and hypertensive patients (n=60) among 3 intubation devices: the MAC, the UE videolaryngoscopy ® (UE), and the UE video intubation stylet ® (VS). Cardiac index (CI), stroke volume index (SVI), heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were recorded using LidcoRapid (V2)® preinduction, preintubation, and every minute for the first 5 min after intubation. We assessed oropharyngeal and laryngeal structures injury as well. Intubation time was significantly shorter than MAC groups (P<0.001) only in UE group of normotensive and hypertensive patients. In normotensive patients, there were no significant differences in any of COP variables or hemodynamic variables among the three devices. In hypertensive patients, SBP and DBP in the MAC group were significantly higher (P<0.05 or <0.01) than the UE and VS groups at 1, 2 and 3 min after intubation, but there were no significant differences in CI, SVI and HR among the three devices. There was no significant difference in oropharyngeal and laryngeal structures injury among all groups. It was concluded that both the UE and VS attenuate only the hemodynamic response to intubation as compared with the MAC in hypertensive patients, but not in normotensive patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26072085     DOI: 10.1007/s11596-015-1449-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci        ISSN: 1672-0733


  24 in total

1.  Hemodynamic responses among three tracheal intubation devices in normotensive and hypertensive patients.

Authors:  S Kihara; J Brimacombe; Y Yaguchi; S Watanabe; N Taguchi; T Komatsuzaki
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 5.108

2.  Prediction of fluid responsiveness by a continuous non-invasive assessment of arterial pressure in critically ill patients: comparison with four other dynamic indices.

Authors:  X Monnet; M Dres; A Ferré; G Le Teuff; M Jozwiak; A Bleibtreu; M-C Le Deley; D Chemla; C Richard; J-L Teboul
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2012-06-26       Impact factor: 9.166

3.  Double-lumen tube tracheal intubation using a rigid video-stylet: a randomized controlled comparison with the Macintosh laryngoscope.

Authors:  M Yang; J A Kim; H J Ahn; J W Choi; D K Kim; E A Cho
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2013-08-23       Impact factor: 9.166

4.  Comparison of haemodynamic responses to tracheal intubation using the Airway Scope(®) and Macintosh laryngoscope in normotensive and hypertensive patients.

Authors:  Y Koyama; M Nishihama; G Inagawa; Y Kamiya; T Miki; R Kurihara; T Goto
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 6.955

5.  Complications related to the pressor response to endotracheal intubation.

Authors:  E J Fox; G S Sklar; C H Hill; R Villanueva; B D King
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1977-12       Impact factor: 7.892

6.  Risks of general anesthesia and elective operation in the hypertensive patient.

Authors:  L Goldman; D L Caldera
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1979-04       Impact factor: 7.892

7.  Acute hypertension during induction of anaesthesia and endotracheal intubation in normotensive man.

Authors:  A M Forbes; F G Dally
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1970-07       Impact factor: 9.166

8.  Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics.

Authors:  R S Cormack; J Lehane
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 6.955

9.  Comparative effects of propofol, landiolol, and nicardipine on hemodynamic and bispectral index responses to endotracheal intubation: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study.

Authors:  Masumi Miyazaki; Yuji Kadoi; Sudo Takashi; Yukari Sawano; Hitoshi Shimada
Journal:  J Clin Anesth       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 9.452

10.  Studies of anaesthesia in relation to hypertension. VII: Adrenergic responses to laryngoscopy.

Authors:  J M Low; J T Harvey; C Prys-Roberts; J Dagnino
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1986-05       Impact factor: 9.166

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation.

Authors:  Jan Hansel; Andrew M Rogers; Sharon R Lewis; Tim M Cook; Andrew F Smith
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-04-04

2.  Effect of Cricoid Pressure on the Glottic View and Intubation with King Vision® Video Laryngoscope.

Authors:  M Manjuladevi; Vikram M Shivappagoudar; Shilpa Bhimasen Joshi; Pramod Kalgudi; Santu Ghosh
Journal:  Anesth Essays Res       Date:  2019 Apr-Jun

3.  The Comparison of Direct Laryngoscopy and Video Laryngoscopy in Pediatric Airways Management for Congenital Heart Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Fatemeh Javaherforooshzadeh; Laleh Gharacheh
Journal:  Anesth Pain Med       Date:  2020-06-09

4.  The Efficacy of Using Video Laryngoscopy on Tracheal Intubation by Novice Physicians.

Authors:  Maryam Ilbagi; Mohammad Nasr-Esfahani
Journal:  Iran J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2021-01

5.  Comparison of Macintosh Laryngoscope and GlideScope® for Orotracheal Intubation in Children Older Than One Year.

Authors:  Leyla Kılınç; Ayşe Surhan Çınar
Journal:  Sisli Etfal Hastan Tip Bul       Date:  2019-06-24
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.