RESUMEN
Introduction. Secure airway for proper ventilation during anesthesia is one important component of a successful surgery. Endotracheal intubation is one of the most important methods in this context. Intubation method and used medication are considerably important in attenuating complications. This research aimed to investigate the impact of two different doses of dexmedetomidine in mitigating cardiovascular responses to endotracheal intubation in candidate cases supporting voluntary operation. Methods. The current research contained 90 cases in the range of 18 and 50 old, with ASA I,II supporting voluntary operation, who were randomly classified into three teams, each group consisting of 30 cases. The first set (A) got 0.5 µg/ kg dexmedetomidine, the second set (B) got 1 µg/ kg dexmedetomidine and the third set (C) got an equal volume of saline as placebo, 600 seconds earlier the initiation of anesthesia. Hemodynamic parameters were recorded at baseline (T0), then after the injection and the earlier initiation of anesthesia (T1), after the induction of anesthesia and before the endotracheal intubation (T2), promptly after tracheal intubation, 180, and 300 after endotracheal intubation (T4, T5). Data was analyzed and p < 0.05 was supposed notable. Findings. In this research, 3 teams were similar regarding weight, age, height, sex and duration of laryngoscopy. The diastolic mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and systolic arterial pressure were significantly lower in dexmedetomidine teams (A,B) at all times after the endotracheal intubation compared to group C. There were no significant differences in hemodynamic factors among group A, B. Conclusion. Dexmedetomidine effectively and significantly attenuates cardiovascular and hemodynamic responses during endotracheal intubation. In addition, different doses of dexmedetomidine did not cause any significant distinct result in mitigating cardiovascular responses.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Preoperative anxiety is a challenging concept in the preoperative care of patients. The hypothesis of this study was that the doctors are able to estimate their patients' preoperative anxiety. METHODS: A prospective clinical trial was performed on 67 adult patients and 26 paired anaesthetists and surgeons. The patients filled out two separate visual analogue scales for anxiety for the planned anaesthesia and surgery. After that the 'anxiety subscale' of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression's Scale was completed and a list of fearsome items was presented as the patients were asked to choose two conditions they considered the most frightening. Finally the patients were asked to select one or more items from a list of things, which they considered likely to relieve their preoperative anxiety. Similarly, the participating doctors were asked to estimate their patients' anxiety, guess their fearful conditions and their anxiety-relieving requests. RESULTS: Median scores for anxiety as estimated with visual analogue scales by anaesthetists, surgeons and patients for anaesthesia were 34, 36 and 6, respectively; and for surgery 53, 47 and 9, respectively. The anxiety subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression's Scale 8.9 +/- 4.2, 8.6 +/- 4.6 and 6.5 +/- 4.5 (mean +/- SD), respectively. Doctors' scores were significantly higher than the patients' scores (P < 0.05). Thus, the anaesthetists and the surgeons were unable to estimate their patients anxiety on any of the scales used (Kendall's tau < 0.25; P < 0.05). The proportion of correct estimation of the fearsome items was 20% for both the anaesthetists and the surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Both anaesthetists and surgeons overestimated their patients' preoperative anxiety by a wide margin and poorly predicted their patients' feared conditions and their desire for relief of anxiety.