International Journal of Medical Anesthesiology
2021, Vol. 4, Issue 4, Part A
Evaluation of nebulized lignocaine versus intravenous lignocaine for attenuation of pressor response to laryngoscopy and intubation in controlled hypertensive patients
Author(s): Dr. Sagar Gavale and Dr. Noopur Singh and Dr. Bhausaheb Pawar
1. To assess the degree of cardiovascular responses to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation in controlled hypertensive patients with standard induction techniques.
2. To assess the effectiveness of nebulised lignocaine in attenuating these pressor responses.
Methodology: Total 60 patients aged between 18-65 years k/c/o hypertension taking some antihypertensive medications scheduled for elective surgical procedures belonging to ASA class II under GA were included in our study. The study population was randomly divided into two groups with 30 patients in each group using computer generated randomized table.
Group A (n=30): received 8 ml of 4% lignocaine nebulization 10 min prior to induction.
Group B (n=30): received intravenous lignocaine 2% 1.5 mg/kg 90 seconds prior to induction.
Result: The study revealed that there is significant difference between (p value < 0.05) the two groups during laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation with respect to heart rate, systolic, diastolic and mean arterial BP.
Conclusion: Study concludes that both nebulized and intravenous lignocaine are effective in attenuating pressor response but nebulized lignocaine gave slightly better results than intravenous lignocaine in attenuating pressor response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation without any significant side effects in controlled hypertensive patients.
Pages: 16-20 | Views: 31 | Downloads: 28
Download Full Article: Click Here
How to cite this article:
Dr. Sagar Gavale, Dr. Noopur Singh, Dr. Bhausaheb Pawar. Evaluation of nebulized lignocaine versus intravenous lignocaine for attenuation of pressor response to laryngoscopy and intubation in controlled hypertensive patients. Int J Med Anesthesiology 2021;4(4):16-20. DOI: 10.33545/26643766.2021.v4.i4a.316