Background: Fentanyl-induced cough is a common difficulty encountered at induction of anesthesia. Various interventions both pharmacological and non-pharmacological have been used to prevent this side effect including dexamethasone and propofol. Aim: To compare the effectiveness of dexamethasone and propofol to prevent fentanyl-induced cough at the induction of general anesthesia. Study design: Randomized controlled trial. Place and duration of study: Department of Anaesthesiology, Surgical ICU & Pain Management, Dow University of Health Sciences and Civil Hospital Karachi from 16th September 2011 to 15th March, 2012. Methodology: One hundred patients who underwent elective surgical procedure were selected. Patients were randomized in two groups of 50 patients each; Group D was given intravenous dexamethasone; whereas patients of group P received intravenous propofol as the premedication before induction. The main outcome measure was effectiveness of both drugs to prevent fentanyl-induced cough. Results: Majority of patients (40%) were between 20-30 years of age group with mean age was 35.80±10.14 years. Males were more than females. Intravenous dexamethasone was significantly effective (90%) than intravenous propofol (70%) [p=0.012]. Conclusion: Intravenous dexamethasone is effective in reducing fentanyl-induced cough in comparison to propofol. Keywords: Dexamethasone, Propofol, Fentanyl-induced cough (FIC)

Aim: To determine the hemodynamic response during insertion of laryngeal mask airway versus conventional intubation. Study design: Randomized controlled trial. Place and duration of study: Department of Anaesthesia, Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre, Karachi from 9th June 2016 to 10th December 2016. Methodology: One hundred and fifty-eight patients were enrolled, and they were divided in two groups; Group A (laryngeal mask airway) and patients falling in group B (conventional method). Baseline haemodynamic parameters were noted, and all patients were induced with propofol 2mg.kg 1. In group B, succinylcholine 1.5mg.kg-1 was used to facilitate intubation. After induction appropriate size endotracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway were inserted for airway control. For first five minutes after intervention, analgesics and any other stimulation were avoided, in order to prevent any haemodynamic alteration. All airway interventions were done by anaesthesiologist who had more than 5 years post fellowship experience. Mean arterial pressures were recorded. Initial haemodynamic parameters were measured when the patient enter the operating room and then second reading taken just after induction of anaesthesia, third reading recorded one minute and fourth reading 5 minutes after the intervention (i.e., after passing either endotracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway). Results: The average mean arterial pressure during process of intubation of patients in Group laryngeal mask airway group was 105.21±5.90 while in conventional group the average mean arterial pressure was 102.21±4.29 with P-value=0.001. Conclusion: Intubation through intubating laryngeal mask airway is accompanied by minimal cardiovascular responses than those associated with direct laryngoscopic tracheal intubation, so it can be used for patients in whom a marked pressor response would be deleterious. Keywords: Intubating laryngeal mask airway, Conventional laryngoscopy, Hemodynamic responses, Airway morbidity,