Intubating Conditions Comparison, After Administration of Propofol with Muscle Relaxant and Profofol without Muscle Relaxant-An Observational Study

Authors

  • Parag Sabale1 , Pratibha Deshmukh2 , Swapnil Meshram3 , Nandkishor Bankar4 , Ashok Choudhary5

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37506/ijfmt.v14i4.12584

Keywords:

Intubation without the use of muscle relaxants, Propofol-Sevoflurane induction.

Abstract

Introduction: General anaesthesia is a condition where generally neuromuscular blocking agents in the
form depolarizing or non-depolarizing agents are used for intubation of trachea. A quest for a safer and
suitable intravenous induction agent has led to the development of Propofol, a 2, 6, di-isopropyl phenol after
a series of investigations. Propofol also reduces hypertension and tachycardia which occurs response during
intubation. Thus this technique protect against the potential adverse effects of tracheal intubation like intracranial, intraocular hypertension and tachycardia.
Material and Method: 100 adult patients of American Society of Anaesthesia (ASA) grade I & II of both
the sexes belonging to the age group of 18-55 years, from various surgical specialties and undergoing
surgery under general anaesthesia were divided in to two groups of 50 each. In both the group intubation
was graded and scored according to ease of laryngoscopy, position of vocal cord, coughing, jaw relaxation
and movement of limb. Score of 5 was classified as excellent, 6-10 good, 11-15 poor and 16-20 as bad. Total
score of <=10 was considered as acceptable and score of >=10 as unacceptable.
Results: Youngest patient was of 18 years in group I and 20 years in group II. Eldest patient was of 54 years
in group I and 55 years in group II. Maximum number of patients were in 20-30 years of age 31 (62%) in
group I and 23 (46%) in group II. Excellent intubating conditions were seen in 32 (64%) patients of group
I and 49 (98%) patients of group II. Before induction baseline readings of mean arterial pressure, systolic
blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and pulse rate were noted in both the groups values.
Similarly reading above parameters were just after induction, after intubation, one minute after intubation,
two minute after intubation and 5 min after intubation. In both the groups slight decrease in all the parameter
were noted just after induction. In both the groups slight decrease in all parameters were noted just after
induction .However slight increase in value of all the parameter were noted after intubation. Difference
which was noted was not statistically significant. Also after 5 minute of intubation parameter in both groups
were approximately similar that of baseline (p>0.05).
Conclusion: 2.5 mg/kg body weight of Propofol with adequate doses of opioids and inhalational agent can
produce acceptable intubating condition when compared with Propofol 2.5mg/kg along with succinylcholine.

Author Biography

  • Parag Sabale1 , Pratibha Deshmukh2 , Swapnil Meshram3 , Nandkishor Bankar4 , Ashok Choudhary5

    1
    Assistant Professor Dept. of Anesthesiology Datta Meghe Medical College, Shalinitai Meghe Hospital and
    Research Centre, (DMIMS), Nagpur-441110, 2
    Professor and HOD Dept. of Anesthesiology Datta Meghe Medical
    College, Shalinitai Meghe Hospital and Research Centre, (DMIMS), Nagpur-441110, 3Assistant Professor Dept.
    of Anesthesiology Datta Meghe Medical College, Shalinitai Meghe Hospital and Research Centre, (DMIMS),
    Nagpur-441110, 4Assistant Professor, Dept. of Microbiology Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe
    Institute of Medical Sciences, Sawangi (Meghe) Wardha-442001, 5
    Professor, Dept. of Anesthesiology Jawaharlal
    Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Sawangi (Meghe) Wardha-442001

Downloads

Published

2020-10-29

How to Cite

Intubating Conditions Comparison, After Administration of Propofol with Muscle Relaxant and Profofol without Muscle Relaxant-An Observational Study. (2020). Indian Journal of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, 14(4), 6286-6291. https://doi.org/10.37506/ijfmt.v14i4.12584