Comparison of Midazolam and Dexmedetomidine As an Adjuvant
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Global Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine Research Article ISSN: 2059-0512 Comparison of midazolam and dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant for proseal laryngeal mask airway insertion: A randomized control trial Satveer Singh Gurjar1, Babita1, Kamlesh Kumar Sharma1, Roncall Bhim Raju2, Bhupendra Singh1 and Rakesh Karnawat2* 1Department of Anesthesia, S.N Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India 2Senior Residence, AIIMS, New Delhi, India Abstract Background: Proseal Laryngeal mask airway(PLMA), a modification of classical LMA, is safe and effective alternative airway device to endotracheal intubation. PLMA incorporates a drain tube ending at the tip so that there are less chances of aspiration. Use of muscle relaxant is not a must for PLMA insertion. Methods: 100 patients of ASA grade I/II divided in two groups (50 in each group). Group A received inj. midazolam 0.03 mg kg-1IV and group B received inj. dexmedetomidine 0.4 mcg kg-1. Induction was done with inj. propofol 2.5 mg/kg IV. Ease of PLMA insertion without using muscle relaxant was studded. Time taken and number of insertion attempts, intraoperative haemodynamic parameters and complications were recorded. Results: The resistance to mouth opening was significantly less (p=0.003) in the group B(significant resistance encountered in 2% cases) in compare togroup A (14% cases).The PLMA insertion conditions were better in group B compared to the group A (p<0.05). Time taken (11.48 ± 3.34 sec)and number of attempts in PLMA insertion were significantly less (p<0.05) in group B when compare to group A (11.48 ± 3.34 sec) without significant intraoperative haemodynamic changes except at 5th min post-insertion. Conclusion: Midazolam and dexmedetomidine both are acceptable in PLMA insertion. Dexmedetomidine produces better conditions for insertion of PLMA with greater haemodynamic stability and less postoperative complications as compared to midazolam. Midazolam and propofol both are known to act synergistically Introduction on gamma aminobutyric acid-A (GABA-A)receptors [10] and also reduces dose requirement [11]. The laryngeal mask airway (LMA) [1] has gained widespread popularity for airway management during surgery. Proseal Laryngeal Dexmedetomidine is a potent and highly selective α2 adrenoreceptor mask airway (PLMA) is a modification of the classic laryngeal mask agonist with a selectivity ratio of 1600:1 (α2:α1) and its premedication airway (CLMA) that incorporates a drain tube ending at the tip of the dose 0.33to 0.67 mcg kg-1 IV seems to be efficaciousand can be used as mask so that there are less chances of aspiration [2]. Use of muscle premedicationin LMA insertion [12-14]. relaxant is not a must for PLMA insertion although a certain degree of The aim of this study was to compare Propofol plus Midazolam jaw relaxation and depth of anaesthesia is required [3]. PLMA can be or Dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant for the ease of PLMA insertion. used as a safe and effective alternative airway device to endotracheal intubation [4]. Methods Propofol is a useful agent for PLMA insertion because of its good After institutional ethical committee approval a prospective jaw relaxation and suppression of the airway reflexes [5]. randomized double blinded comparative study was conducted in Dr. When used alone, the dose of propofol often exceeds 2.5 mg/ S.N. Medical college and attached hospitals on 100 patients of 18-60 kg IV and easy insertion was seen only in about 62% of patients, years age, 45-80 kg weight, BMI <25 and ASA I and II status who were and undesired side effects like drop in blood pressure, coughing, scheduled to undergo elective surgery. Patient having increased risk of laryngospasm and body movement may occur [6]. We need an ideal aspiration (e.g. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, pregnancy), known or anticipated difficult airway, any history of reactive airway disease, agent or near ideal agent to overcome these side effects. A variety of adjuvant have been tried which can ease LMA insertion e.g. fentanyl [7], intravenous lignocaine [8], muscle relaxants [9] but none have been found to be ideal. Correspondence to: Karnawat R, Professor, Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Dr. S. N. Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India, Tel: However, propofol is expensive so dexmedetomidine or midazolam 9828033321; E-mail: [email protected] used as anadjuvants to propofol may decrease the incidence of adverse Key words: proseal laryngeal mask airway, midazolam, dexmedetomidine, responses to insertion of the LMA and cost. We considered that either propofol of these drugs given before propofol may obtund airway reflexes Received: December 05, 2015; Accepted: January 19, 2016; Published: January sufficiently to allow satisfactory insertion of LMA at a lesser cost. 22, 2016 Glob Anesth Perioper Med, 2016 doi: 10.15761/GAPM.1000139 Volume 2(1): 147-151 Gurjar SS (2015) Comparison of midazolam and dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant for proseal laryngeal mask airway insertion. A randomised control trial surgery of the head and neck and allergy to any of the study drugs were The time taken for insertion was recorded from picking up the excluded. PLMA to the connection of breathing circuit. If the airway was found to be obstructed, PLMA was removed and another dose of propofol 0.5 A detailed pre-anaesthetic check-up (PAC) including history, mg/kg was given, followed by another attempt of PLMA insertion 60 physical examination, detailed airway examination and routine sec later. investigations were carried out. A failed attempt was defined as removal of PLMA from the Patients were allocated into two groups by randomization using mouth. A maximum of two attempts were allowed and the number of chit in box method. An anaesthetist who was not involved in PLMA attempts were recorded. After two failed attempts the study protocol insertion or assessment looked up the group assigned and prepared the was discontinued and the patient’s airway was managed according to drugs. The study groups were: standard protocols. 1. Group A (n=50): Inj. Propofol 2.5 mg kg-1 IV with Inj. The PLMA placement was assessedby feeling the resistance at the Midazolam 0.03 mg kg-1 IV end of device insertion, assessment of appropriate length of airway 2. Group B (n=50): Inj. Propofol 2.5 mg kg-1 IV with Inj. tube outside the mouth, outward movement of device on cuff inflation, Dexmedetomidine 0.4 mcg kg-1 IV neck bulge on cuff inflation, adequacy of manual ventilation, passage of gastric tube and supra-sternal notch test. No muscle relaxant is used in After checking fasting status and written informed consent, an IV our study still if the patient remained apnoeic for more than 30 sec after line secured with 18G cannula, all monitoring (ECG, pulse oximeter, PLMA insertion the lungs were manually ventilated until spontaneous Noninvasive arterial BP) attached and inj. Ringer Lactate started. ventilation returns. Injglycopyrrolate 0.2 mg IV was given 10 min before induction. The head was kept in sniffing position by using a firm 10 cm pillow. Patients After PLMA was successfully inserted, anaesthesia was maintained were pre-oxygenated for 3 mins then given the study drug. Group A with 1 vol% is oflurane and 60% 2N O with 40% O2 and the end tidal -1 recievedInj. dexmedetomidine 0.4 mcg kg IV diluted in 20 ml normal CO2 was maintained between 35-40 mmHg. saline over 5 min followed by NS 0.03 ml/kgIV stat and Group B given Each patient’s blood pressure and heart rate was recorded before 20 ml NS over 5 min followed by Inj. Midazolam 0.03 mg kg-1 IV stat. and after giving the adjuvant drug and 1minute after induction with After 2 min. inj. propofol 2.5 mg/kg IV administered over 60 seconds. propofol and one minute after PLMA insertion and thereafter every To reduce pain on propofol administration 1ml of 1% lidocaine was minute till 5 min post device insertion. added per 100 mg of propofol. If required further rescue doses of propofol 0.5 mg/kg IV were given every 30 seconds until loss of verbal Any complication of device insertion like trauma to lip/tongue/ response and consciousness then PLMA was inserted after 60 sec of inj. oral mucosa, presence of blood on device, sore throat and difficulty Propofol. PLMA insertion was done by experienced anaesthetist. The on swallowing and pain on phonation after 1 hr post operatively was sizes of PLMA were selected according to the patient weight. The PLMA recorded. was inserted according to standard protocol using the introducer tool Statistical analysis – Values are presented as mean (SD or range) or technique.PLMA insertion conditions were assessed using six variables number (%). Hemodynamic data were analyzed using 2 tailed student’s on a 3 point scaleas used by Singh R, et al. [15] as follows: ‘t’ test for intergroup comparison and paired ‘t’ test for intragroup Resistance to mouth opening comparison. Ordinal categorical data such as LMA insertion conditions and number of attempts were analysed with the Chi Square Test. Resistance to insertion Nominal categorical data such as gender was also analysed with the Chi Swallowing Square test. A p value < 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant. The statistical analysis was done using statistical package for the social Coughing and gagging sciences (SPSS) software version 17.0. Head and body movement Results Laryngospasm (defined as a partial or complete obstruction with an apparently correctly placed PLMA) All the data is expressed as mean and standard deviation. Demographic and airway examination variables were comparable and Scoring system (Table 1) is a modification of muzi’s score [16]. not significant in both groups. (p>0.05) (Table 2). A score of ≤12 in total ( or ≤2 for each variable) were considered optimum for LMA insertion.