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

Lateral approach versus conventional approach supraclavicular block for forearm surgeries. A prospective randomized controlled study

Background and Aims Conventional technique of supraclavicular block is associated with direct injury to the vessels nerves and pleura which can be minimized with lateral approach Here we compared lateral with conventiona...

Induction characteristics of sevoflurane in children: A comparison with halothane

Introduction: Halothane has been the inhalational induction agent most often used in paediatric anaesthesia as it provides smooth induction with good intubating conditions. However, it is associated with disadvantages li...

Comparison of serum lactate and base excess in predicting the survival outcome in polytrauma patients

Aims: To determine the earlier and better prognostic marker between ‘blood lactate levels’ and base excess’ in polytrauma patients. Additionally we sought to determine the effect of lactate normalisation time on outcome....

A prospective randomized study comparing 0.5% isobaric solutions of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine with fentanyl as an adjuvant for subarachnoid block in patients undergoing elective lower limb surgery

In the present study we compared levobupivacaine with ropivacaine in order to determine the suitability of each drug for spinal anaesthesia. Aim: To compare levobupivacaine with ropivacaine with respect to onset, duratio...

Anaesthetic management of an Extremely Low Birth Weight (ELBW) neonate with multiple co-morbidities

Anaesthetic management of an extremely low birth weight (ELBW) neonate is always a challenge. Challenges are substantial beginning from pre-operative preparation till the neonate has been shifted to the neonatal intensiv...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP472891
  • DOI 10.18231/2394-4994.2018.0018
  • Views 58
  • 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