ArticleBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
Comparison of haemodynamic response to tracheal intubation with two different videolaryngoscopes: A randomized clinical trial.
Article in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the effects of magnesium sulfate and lidocaine spray on hemodynamic changes caused by laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation: a randomized clinical trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- Ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia in Chinese patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Trial
- Comparison of intubating laryngeal mask airway and video laryngoscope during emergency intubation in patients who are critically ill.World journal of critical care medicine · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndotracheal intubation (ETI), which is the gold standard in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), may cause myocardial ischaemia by disturbing the balance between haemodynamic changes and oxygen supply and consumption of the myocardium as a result of sympathetic stimulation. In this study, we aimed to compare two different videolaryngoscopes (C-MAC and Airtraq) in the hemodynamic response to ETI.
methodsFifty ASA II...III CABG surgery patients were randomly assigned to C-MAC or Airtraq. The hemodynamic data included arterial blood pressure [systolic (SAP), diastolic (DAP) and mean (MAP)] and heart rate (HR) and were recorded at six different points in time: before laryngoscopy-T1, during laryngoscopy-T2, immediately after intubation-T3, and 3 (T4), 5 (T5) and 10 (T6) minutes after intubation. Intraoperative complications were recorded. Patients were questioned about postoperative complications 2 and 24...hours following extubation.
resultsThe hemodynamic response to ETI was significantly greater with C-MAC. The increase in HR started with the laryngoscopy procedure, whereas increases in SAP, DAP, and MAP started immediately after ETI (p...=...0.024; p...=...0.012; p...=...0.030; p...=...0.009, respectively). In group analyses, T1...T2, T2...T3 and T1...T3 comparisons did not show any significant differences in HR with Airtraq. However, with C-MAC, HR after intubation increased significantly compared to the pre-laryngoscopy values (T1...T3) (p...=...0.004). The duration of laryngoscopy was significantly reduced with C-MAC (p...<...0.001), but the duration of intubation and total intubation were similar (p...=...0.36; p...=...0.79).
conclusionsCompared to C-MAC, the hemodynamic response to ETI was less with Airtraq. Thus, Airtraq may be preferred in CABG patients for ETI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.