ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
Comparison of intubating conditions following dexmedetomidine versus midazolam nebulization during awake fiberoptic intubation.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Awake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI) is the gold standard for predicted difficult airways. Optimal sedation is crucial for patient comfort and procedural success. Nebulized sedatives offer a noninvasive approach, allowing for titration and rapid cessation if needed. We aimed to compare patient comfort, as reflected by patient reactions during AFOI, following dexmedetomidine versus midazolam nebulization in patients with a predicted difficult airway. The ease of the intubation process and degree of the patient's alertness/sedation were also compared. Material and Methods: It was a prospective randomized, double-blinded study. Fifty patients with predicted difficult airways received either dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg or midazolam 0.2 mg/kg nebulization. The airway was then topicalized with lignocaine spray, jelly, and a transtracheal block, and AFOI was performed. Following intubation, patients were induced intravenously. Patient comfort, ease of intubation, hemodynamic stability, and adverse events were assessed in both groups and compared. Results: Midazolam nebulization resulted in significantly better patient comfort, as evidenced by lower patient reactions and higher comfort behavioral scores. Both drugs provided adequate sedation for AFOI. The ease of intubation was comparable between the two groups. No significant hemodynamic changes or adverse events were observed. Conclusions: Midazolam nebulization prior to AFOI in patients with a difficult airway provided significantly better patient comfort compared to dexmedetomidine nebulization. The ease of intubation was comparable following nebulization of both drugs.
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.