Low dose propofol vs. lidocaine for relief of resistant post-extubation laryngospasm in the obstetric patient

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Mokhtar,Ali M.
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Badawy,Ahmed A.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942018000100057
Resumo: Abstract Background Post-extubation laryngospasm is a dangerous complication that should be managed promptly. Standard measures were described for its management. We aimed to compare the efficacy of propofol (0.5 mg.kg-1) vs. lidocaine (1.5 mg.kg-1) for treatment of resistant post-extubation laryngospasm in the obstetric patients, after failure of the standard measures. Method This study was conducted over 2 years on all obstetric patients scheduled for cesarean delivery. Post-extubation laryngospasm was initially managed with a standard protocol (removal of offending stimulus, jaw thrust, positive pressure ventilation with 100% oxygen). When this protocol failed, the tested drug was the second line (lidocaine in the first year and propofol in the second year). Lastly, succinylcholine was used when the tested drug failed. Results In lidocaine group, 5% of parturients developed post-extubation laryngospasm, 31.9% of them were successfully treated via standard protocol, and 68.1% required lidocaine treatment. Among these, 65.6% of patients treated with lidocaine responded successfully and 34.4% required succinylcholine to relieve laryngospasm. In propofol group, 4.7% of parturients developed post-extubation laryngospasm, 30.1% of them were successfully treated via standard protocol, and 69.9% required propofol treatment. Among these, 82.8% of patients treated with propofol responded successfully and 17.2% required succinylcholine to relieve laryngospasm. Conclusion Small dose of propofol (0.5 mg.kg-1) is marginally more effective than lidocaine (1.5 mg.kg-1) for the treatment of resistant post-extubation laryngospasm in obstetric patients, after failure of standard measures and before the use of muscle relaxants.
id SBA-1_366a21aee147198ec1e5f0cae383ee06
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0034-70942018000100057
network_acronym_str SBA-1
network_name_str Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Low dose propofol vs. lidocaine for relief of resistant post-extubation laryngospasm in the obstetric patientPropofolLidocaineLaryngospasmObstetricAbstract Background Post-extubation laryngospasm is a dangerous complication that should be managed promptly. Standard measures were described for its management. We aimed to compare the efficacy of propofol (0.5 mg.kg-1) vs. lidocaine (1.5 mg.kg-1) for treatment of resistant post-extubation laryngospasm in the obstetric patients, after failure of the standard measures. Method This study was conducted over 2 years on all obstetric patients scheduled for cesarean delivery. Post-extubation laryngospasm was initially managed with a standard protocol (removal of offending stimulus, jaw thrust, positive pressure ventilation with 100% oxygen). When this protocol failed, the tested drug was the second line (lidocaine in the first year and propofol in the second year). Lastly, succinylcholine was used when the tested drug failed. Results In lidocaine group, 5% of parturients developed post-extubation laryngospasm, 31.9% of them were successfully treated via standard protocol, and 68.1% required lidocaine treatment. Among these, 65.6% of patients treated with lidocaine responded successfully and 34.4% required succinylcholine to relieve laryngospasm. In propofol group, 4.7% of parturients developed post-extubation laryngospasm, 30.1% of them were successfully treated via standard protocol, and 69.9% required propofol treatment. Among these, 82.8% of patients treated with propofol responded successfully and 17.2% required succinylcholine to relieve laryngospasm. Conclusion Small dose of propofol (0.5 mg.kg-1) is marginally more effective than lidocaine (1.5 mg.kg-1) for the treatment of resistant post-extubation laryngospasm in obstetric patients, after failure of standard measures and before the use of muscle relaxants.Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia2018-02-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942018000100057Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia v.68 n.1 2018reponame:Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)instacron:SBA10.1016/j.bjane.2017.03.003info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMokhtar,Ali M.Badawy,Ahmed A.eng2018-02-02T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0034-70942018000100057Revistahttps://www.sbahq.org/revista/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||sba2000@openlink.com.br1806-907X0034-7094opendoar:2018-02-02T00:00Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Low dose propofol vs. lidocaine for relief of resistant post-extubation laryngospasm in the obstetric patient
title Low dose propofol vs. lidocaine for relief of resistant post-extubation laryngospasm in the obstetric patient
spellingShingle Low dose propofol vs. lidocaine for relief of resistant post-extubation laryngospasm in the obstetric patient
Mokhtar,Ali M.
Propofol
Lidocaine
Laryngospasm
Obstetric
title_short Low dose propofol vs. lidocaine for relief of resistant post-extubation laryngospasm in the obstetric patient
title_full Low dose propofol vs. lidocaine for relief of resistant post-extubation laryngospasm in the obstetric patient
title_fullStr Low dose propofol vs. lidocaine for relief of resistant post-extubation laryngospasm in the obstetric patient
title_full_unstemmed Low dose propofol vs. lidocaine for relief of resistant post-extubation laryngospasm in the obstetric patient
title_sort Low dose propofol vs. lidocaine for relief of resistant post-extubation laryngospasm in the obstetric patient
author Mokhtar,Ali M.
author_facet Mokhtar,Ali M.
Badawy,Ahmed A.
author_role author
author2 Badawy,Ahmed A.
author2_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Mokhtar,Ali M.
Badawy,Ahmed A.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Propofol
Lidocaine
Laryngospasm
Obstetric
topic Propofol
Lidocaine
Laryngospasm
Obstetric
description Abstract Background Post-extubation laryngospasm is a dangerous complication that should be managed promptly. Standard measures were described for its management. We aimed to compare the efficacy of propofol (0.5 mg.kg-1) vs. lidocaine (1.5 mg.kg-1) for treatment of resistant post-extubation laryngospasm in the obstetric patients, after failure of the standard measures. Method This study was conducted over 2 years on all obstetric patients scheduled for cesarean delivery. Post-extubation laryngospasm was initially managed with a standard protocol (removal of offending stimulus, jaw thrust, positive pressure ventilation with 100% oxygen). When this protocol failed, the tested drug was the second line (lidocaine in the first year and propofol in the second year). Lastly, succinylcholine was used when the tested drug failed. Results In lidocaine group, 5% of parturients developed post-extubation laryngospasm, 31.9% of them were successfully treated via standard protocol, and 68.1% required lidocaine treatment. Among these, 65.6% of patients treated with lidocaine responded successfully and 34.4% required succinylcholine to relieve laryngospasm. In propofol group, 4.7% of parturients developed post-extubation laryngospasm, 30.1% of them were successfully treated via standard protocol, and 69.9% required propofol treatment. Among these, 82.8% of patients treated with propofol responded successfully and 17.2% required succinylcholine to relieve laryngospasm. Conclusion Small dose of propofol (0.5 mg.kg-1) is marginally more effective than lidocaine (1.5 mg.kg-1) for the treatment of resistant post-extubation laryngospasm in obstetric patients, after failure of standard measures and before the use of muscle relaxants.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-02-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942018000100057
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942018000100057
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1016/j.bjane.2017.03.003
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia v.68 n.1 2018
reponame:Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)
instacron:SBA
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)
instacron_str SBA
institution SBA
reponame_str Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
collection Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||sba2000@openlink.com.br
_version_ 1752126629565431808