Overview:Awake fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB) guided intubation is the gold standard of airway management in patients with cervical spine injury. It is essential to sufficiently anesthetize the upper airway before the performance of awake FOB guided intubation in order to ensure patient comfort and cooperation. This randomized controlled study was performed to compare two methods of airway anesthesia, namely ultrasonic nebulization of local anesthetic and performance of airway blocks.Materials and Methods:A total of 50 adult patients with cervical spine injury were randomly allocated into two groups. Group L received airway anesthesia through ultrasonic nebulization of 10 ml of 4% lignocaine and Group NB received airway blocks (bilateral superior laryngeal and transtracheal recurrent laryngeal) each with 2 ml of 2% lignocaine and viscous lignocaine gargles. FOB guided orotracheal intubation was then performed. Hemodynamic variables at baseline and during the procedure, patient recall, vocal cord visibility, ease of intubation, coughing/gagging episodes, and signs of lignocaine toxicity were noted.Results:The observations did not reveal any significant differences in demographics or hemodynamic parameters at any time during the study. However, the time taken for intubation was significantly lower in Group NB as compared with the Group L. Group L had an increased number of coughing/gagging episodes as compared with Group NB. Vocal cord visibility and ease of intubation were better in patients who received airway blocks and hence the amount of supplemental lignocaine used was less in this group. Overall patient comfort was better in Group NB with fewer incidences of unpleasant recalls as compared with Group L.Conclusion:Upper airway blocks provide better quality of anesthesia than lignocaine nebulization as assessed by patient recall of procedure, coughing/gagging episodes, ease of intubation, vocal cord visibility, and time taken to intubate.
Background:The role of clonidine as an adjuvant to local anesthetic agents in brachial plexus block (BPB) has been extensively studied. However, till date there has been no consensus about the ideal dose of clonidine for this purpose. This study was carried out to evaluate two doses of clonidine-1 and 2 g/kg, added to 0.5% bupivacaine, with regard to onset and duration of sensorimotor blockade, hemodynamic effects, postoperative analgesia, and adverse effects.Materials and Methods:Sixty adult patients undergoing upper limb surgeries were randomly allocated into two groups. Thirty patients received 1 g/kg clonidine (group I) and the rest received 2 g/kg clonidine (group II) added to 30 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine through nerve stimulator-guided supraclavicular BPB. The onset and duration of sensorimotor blockade, hemodynamic variables, duration of analgesia, level of sedation, and adverse effects was assessed.Results:The onset of sensorimotor block was earlier in group II (9.9 ± 4.1 min for sensory block and 13.2 ± 6.7 min for motor block) than in group I (15.9 ± 6.8 min for sensory block and 18.5 ± 7.8 min for motor block). The duration of analgesia was also prolonged in patients receiving the higher dose (21.0 ± 2.96 h vs. 14.9 ± 3.0 h). Although hemodynamics remained comparable in both the groups, incidence of hypotension and bradycardia was higher in group II as compared to group I. The sedation was clinically and statistically more in group II patients (43% vs. 17%).Conclusion:Higher dose of clonidine in BPB hastens the onset, prolongs the duration of sensorimotor blockade and postoperative analgesia without significant hemodynamic alterations. It also causes more sedation, which although ensures patient comfort in most cases, but might be undesirable in certain situations.
BackgroundAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a frequent complication of COVID-19 and is associated with a component of thrombo-inflammation and cytokine storm. COVID-19 also affects the hemostatic system causing multiple coagulation abnormalities that is a cause of concern and needs to be addressed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.