• Mansoor Aqil.
• Mansoor Aqil, FCPS, Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesiology (41), College of Medicine, King Saud University, Consultant Anesthetist, King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
• Pak J Med Sci. 2014 Sep 1; 30 (5): 1001-6.

ObjectiveTo compare hemodynamic stress response (HDSR) to ET intubation using Glidescope (GLS) and Flexible fiberoptic laryngoscope (FFB).MethodsThis prospective randomized comparative study was conducted at King Khalid University Hospital, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia from June 2011 - November 2013. Eighty ASA 1 & 2 patients with normal airway undergoing elective surgical procedure requiring ET intubation were included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned in two groups GLS or FFB. General anesthesia was induced with propofol and fentanyl. Muscle relaxation was achieved with cisatracurium and ET intubation was performed using either GLS or FFB. Noninvasive hemodynamic data was recorded (HR, systolic, diastolic and mean blood pressure) as pre-induction, baseline and after ET intubation at one minute intervals for successive five minutes. End tidal Sevoflurane and CO2 at the time of intubation, need of external neck pressure, time to successful intubation and number of attempts were recorded; and rate pressure product was calculated.ResultsInduction of anesthesia resulted in significant fall in blood pressure in both the groups. ET intubation resulted in similar rise of BP in both groups (for 3-4 minutes) from their baseline values; however the rise was not significantly different from their respective pre-induction values. Time to intubation was longer with FFB compared to GLS however, need for external neck manipulation was more with GLS.ConclusionThere was no difference in HDSR due to ET intubation using either GLS or FFB in healthy adult patients with normal airway. Rate pressure product remained within the acceptable range.

3 keywords...

hide…