A prospective randomized control trial -Comparison of hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation – Macintosh versus McCoy blade

Journal Title: Indian Journal of Clinical Anaesthesia - Year 2018, Vol 5, Issue 1

Abstract

Introduction: As is well described laryngoscopy and intubation produce significant hemodynamic response. It is shown in previous studies that type of laryngoscope blade used affects the degree of hemodynamic response to endotracheal intubation. In our study we have attempted to compare hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation using Macintosh and McCoy blade. Aim: Our aim was to perform comparative study of hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation using Macintosh versus McCoy blade. Materials and Methods: A prospective randomized controlled study comparing hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation using Macintosh and McCoy blade was conducted. A total no. of Sixty patients, either male or female, between age group of 20 -50yrs, belonging to American Society of Anaesthesiology physical status I and II requiring General anaesthesia were randomly allocated to either group A (Macintosh group) or group B (McCoy group) In both the groups, standard methods were used. Comparison of hemodynamic parameters i.e. Heart rate (HR), systolic (SBP) diastolic (DBP) and mean blood pressure (MAP) was done at induction, during laryngoscopy and intubation, till 5 mins after intubation. Statistical Analysis: Hemodynamic changes in between the two groups were compared statistically using Unpaired “t” tests. Results: Significant rise in all HR, SBP, DBP, MAP was seen in both the groups after laryngoscopy and intubation. In group A the rise was found to be statistically significant as compared to group B. Conclusion: This study helped us to conclude that McCoy blade produces reduced hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation as compared to Macintosh blade.

Authors and Affiliations

Madhavi R. Godbole, Girish Saundattikar

Keywords

Related Articles

Comparison of two supraglottic airways - I-gel and Proseal laryngeal mask airway for ease of insertion and hemodynamic stability

Introduction and Aims: Supraglottic airway devices are safe and efficient in airway management. I-gelTM and ProsealTM laryngeal mask airway are supraglottic airway devices which are used to secure and maintain airway dur...

Comparison of recovery profile of desflurane and sevoflurane in dental surgeries

Aim: Is to find the recovery profile of desflurane anaesthesia to sevoflurane anaesthesia during dental surgeries. Settings and Design: Single Blind Randomized controlled trial. Methods: Forty ASA I and II patients under...

Ultrasound guided paramedian approach compared with landmark based paramedian approach for thoracic epidural

Introduction: Currently, one has to rely on surface anatomical landmarks and loss of resistance technique for epidural analgesia. It frequently (70%) leads to incorrect identification of a given inter-space as it is a bl...

A study of the effect of caudal epidural neostigmine for post operative pain relief in children undergoing lower abdominal surgery

Introduction and Objective: Providing adequate pain relief has always been part of anaesthesiologist’s role in the perioperative period beyond post anaesthesia care unit. Among the many adjuvants studied neostigmine was...

A prospective, randomized, double blind, systemic controlled trial to compare analgesic efficacy of clonidine and fentanyl in supraclavicular block with 0.75% ropivacaine

Introduction and Object Fentanyl and clonidine mostly used as adjuvant to improve quality and duration of nerve block In present study we compared clonidine and fentanyl perineurally and systemically in Supraclavicular B...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP472891
  • DOI 10.18231/2394-4994.2018.0018
  • Views 76
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Madhavi R. Godbole, Girish Saundattikar (2018). A prospective randomized control trial -Comparison of hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation – Macintosh versus McCoy blade. Indian Journal of Clinical Anaesthesia, 5(1), 110-113. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-472891