ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
Comparison of hemodynamic responses to nasal intubation in cancer patients receiving opioid-free general anesthesia versus standard regimen.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Nasotracheal intubation evokes greater hemodynamic responses than oral intubation. We compared the heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) responses following nasal intubation during opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) using intravenous lignocaine versus standard regimen using morphine in cancer patients undergoing tumor resection. Material and Methods: This randomized, double-blinded study was conducted in 84 adults. Group A received lidocaine bolus 1.5 mg/kg over 10 min followed by infusion of 1 mg/kg/h. Group B received morphine 0.2mg/kg bolus over 10 min followed by infusion of 2mg/h. Protocols for induction and intubation were similar. Results: Mean HR and MAP at preinduction, immediately after induction, and at 1, 3, and 5 min after intubation were comparable in groups A and B. Intragroup comparison of preinduction HR with subsequent values in group A showed that the HR values at 1,3, and 5 min after intubation were significantly higher than the preinduction value. HR after induction was comparable. Intragroup analysis in group B showed that preinduction HR was comparable with HR after induction and at 3 and 5 min after intubation. HR at 1 min was significantly higher. Intragroup analysis in group A showed that the MAP values were significantly lower than the preinduction value after induction and at 1,3, and 5 min after intubation. In group B, MAP was significantly lower than the preinduction value after induction and at 3 and 5 min after intubation, with the value being comparable at 1 min. Conclusion: OFA with lignocaine bolus followed by infusion, as well as morphine did not attenuate the HR responses to nasal intubation in cancer patients. However, both techniques effectively blunted the MAP response.
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.