Valera-Rodríguez Y, Elizalde-Flores F, Torres-González CA, Rendón-Macías ME

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 13-19
PDF size: 154.96 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Laryngoscopy causes several cardiovascular responses, such as arterial hypotension and/or tachycardia due to the delivery of catecholamines. Blocking the local receptors could reduce this response. Objective: To compare the efficacy (laryngeal-tracheal pain control) and safety (cardiovascular toxicity) of nebulized versus intravenous lidocaine. Material and methods: Randomized blinded clinical trial. Patients were allocated to receive nebulized 2% lidocaine (single doses of 2.5 mg/kg, GLN group) or intravenous lidocaine (same doses), GLIV group. The laryngeal-tracheal pain was measured on the postanesthetic period in Ramsay IV using the visual pain scale. The hemodynamic measures (heart rate [HR], systolic-median-diastolic arterial pressures [SP, MP, DP]) were evaluated at the intubation and 5-10-15 minutes after. Results: There were 30 patients per group. The GLN group showed less level of pain (median of 0 versus 4, p ‹ 0.001), without change in the HR (10 minutes 65.9 ± 4 versus 84.1 ± 6, p ‹ 0.001). The SP-MP-DP increased in both groups at the five minutes, with a later reduction in the GLN group at 10 and 15 minutes (MP_15min 63 ± 4 versus 74 ± 5, p = 0.01). There were no events of hyper- or hypotension nor arrhythmias. Conclusion: The use of nebulized lidocaine may be more effective to control the post-intubation laryngeal-tracheal pain, with less risk of hemodynamic effects.

REFERENCES

1. Edomwonyi N, Ekwere I, Omo E, Rupasinghe A. Postoperative throat complications after tracheal intubation. Ann Afr Med. 2006; 5 (1): 28-32.

2. Gulabani M, Gurha P, Dass P, Kulshreshtha. Comparative analysis of efficacy of lignocaine 1.5 mg/kg and two different doses of dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg/kg and 1 µg/kg) in attenuating the hemodynamic pressure response to laryngoscopy and intubation. Anesth Essays Res. 2015; 9 (1): 5-14.

3. Shribman AJ, Smith G, Achola KJ. Cardiovascular and catecholamine responses to laryngoscopy with and without tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth. 1987; 59 (3): 295-299.

4. Singh S, Smith JE. Cardiovascular changes after the three stages of nasotracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth. 2003; 91 (5): 667-671.

5. Hussain AM, Sultan ST. Efficacy of fentanyl and esmolol in the prevention of haemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2005; 15 (8): 454-457.

6. Goodman & Gilman. Las bases farmacológicas de la terapéutica. 9.a edición. México: McGraw-Hill-Interamericana; 1997. pp. 353-371.

7. Fraga M, Pérez BR. Caracterización de la respuesta cardiovascular (taquicardia e hipertensión) posterior a la intubación endotraqueal en pacientes pretratados con esmolol en dosis única. Rev Anest Mex. 1994; 6 (3): 142-146.

8. Babl FE, Goldfinch C, Mandrawa C, Crellin D, O’Sullivan R, Donath S. Does nebulized lidocaine reduce the pain and distress of nasogastric tube insertion in young children? A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2009; 123 (6): 1548-1555.

9. Slaton RM, Thomas RH, Mbathi JW. Evidence for therapeutic uses of nebulized lidocaine in the treatment of intractable cough and asthma. Ann Pharmacother. 2013; 47 (4): 578-585.

10. De la Morena F, Santander C, Esteban C, de Cuenca B, García JA, Sánchez J et al. Usefulness of applying lidocaine in esophagogastroduodenoscopy performed under sedation with propofol. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2013; 5 (5): 231-239.

11. Briones-Corona G, Álvarez-González GR, Baltazar-Berruecos VM, Zambada-Zazueta CL, González-Velázquez MA, García-Álvarez A et al. Lidocaína para disminuir la respuesta cardiovascular en intubación endotraqueal de pacientes hipertensos. Comparación de tres métodos de administración. An Med Asoc Med Hosp ABC. 2005; 50 (4): 163-167.

12. Obiaya MO, Okechukwu C, Dakaraju P et al. The incidence of post anaesthetic complications —a follow-up programme. West Afr J Med. 2005; 3: 165-169.

13. Mogensen S, Treldal C, Feldager E, Pulis S, Jacobsen J, Andersen O et al. New lidocaine lozenge as topical anesthesia compared to lidocaine viscous oral solution before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Local Reg Anesth. 2012; 5: 17-22.

14. Leslie K, Davidson AJ. Awareness during anesthesia: a problem without solutions? Minerva Anestesiol. 2010; 76 (8): 624-628.

15. Klopman MA, Sebel PS. Cost-effectiveness of bispectral index monitoring. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2011; 24 (2): 177-181.

16. Thomson A, Andrew G, Jones DB. Optimal sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: review and recommendations. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010; 25 (3): 469-478.

17. Tsui BC, Cunningham K. Fiberoptic endotracheal intubation after topicalization with in-circuit nebulized lidocaine in a child with a difficult airway. Anesth Analg. 2004; 98 (5): 1286-1288.

18. Williams KA, Barker GL, Harwood RJ, Woodall NM. Combined nebulization and spray-as-you-go topical local anaesthesia of the airway. Br J Anaesth. 2005; 95 (4): 549-553.

19. Miller CD, Warren SJ. IV lignocaine fails to attenuate the cardiovascular response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth. 1990; 65 (2): 216-219.