medigraphic.com

2005, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Anest 2005; 28 (2)

Comparative evaluation of clinical conditions for the tracheal intubation obtained with two marks of vecuronium

Hernández-Revilla M, Ramírez-Hernández F, Guzmán-Sánchez JA

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 80-84
PDF size: 61.65 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: In clinical practice, it is common knowledge that conditions for intubation vary with different brands of vecuronium bromide. Clinically acceptable conditions are important in order to reduce complications. Methods: Thirty adult surgical patients ASA class I or II were randomly allocated into two, 15-patient groups, to receive either of two brands of vecuronium. Anesthesia was induced with fentanyl 2-3 μg/kg and propofol 1.5-2.0 μg/kg. Each group received a dose of either PisaTM vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg or OrganonTM vecuronioum 0.1 µg/kg. One hundred and eighty seconds after injecting the dose of muscle relaxant, patients were intubated. The intubation conditions were scored according to the Sandor Agoston scale. Results: Physical characteristics of patients in both study groups were similar. In the PisaTM brand group, conditions for intubation were clinically acceptable in 13 patients and not acceptable in 2 patients (p › 0.05), whereas in the OrganonTM brand group, conditions were clinically acceptable in all 15 patients. Conclusions: There were no significant differences between the groups with either brand of vecuronium. However, the use of a simplified qualitative rating scale would still be preferable in future clinical studies under standardized experimental conditions.


REFERENCES

  1. Fahey M, Morris R, Miller R, Sohn Y. Clinical pharmacology of ORG NC45. Anesthesiology 1981;55: 6-11.

  2. Miller R. Anesthesia. 5th ed. Churchill Livingstone; 2000;448-9.

  3. Bencini A, Newton D. Rate of onset of good intubating conditions, respiratory depression and hand muscle paralysis after vecuronium. Br J Anaesth 1984;56:959-965.

  4. Smith I, Saad G. Comparison of intubating conditions after rocuronium or vecuronium when the timing of intubation is judged by clinical criteria. Br J Anaesth 1998;80:235-237.

  5. Krieg N, Mazur L, Booij LHDJ, Crul J. Intubation conditions and reversibility of a new non-depolarizing blocking agent, NC-45. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1980;24:423-425.

  6. Doenicke A, Czeslick E, Moss J, Hoernecke R. Onset time, endotracheal intubating conditions, and plasma histamine after cisatracurium and vecuronium administration. Anesth Analg 1998;87: 434-438.

  7. Broek L, Hommes F, Nap H, Wierda J. Rocuronium and mivacurium induced neuromuscular block and intubating conditions: a comparison with vecuronium. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1995;12:27-30.

  8. Agoston S. Onset time and evaluation of intubating conditions: rocuronium in perspective. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1995;12 (Suppl. 11):31-37.

  9. Viby-Mogensen J, Engbaek J, Eriksson LI, Gramstad L, Jensen E, Jensen FS, Koscielniak-Nielsen Z, Skovgaard LT, Ostergaard D. Good clinical research practice (GCRP) in pharmacodynamic studies of neuromuscular blocking agents. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1996;40:59-74.

  10. Le Corre F. Visual estimation of onset time at the orbicularis oculi after five muscle relaxants: Application to clinical monitoring of tracheal intubation. Anesth Analg 1999;89:1305-1311.

  11. Huemer G, Schwarz S, Gilly H, Weindlmayr-Goettel M. Pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and intubation conditions after priming with three different doses of vecuronium. Anesth Analg 1995;80:538-542.

  12. Kim KS. The dose effect of ephedrine on the onset time of vecuronium. Anesth Analg 2003;96(4):1042-6.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com