Background: Processes like laryngoscopy, endotracheal intubation and extubation triggers various hemodynamic stress response and here it has been attempted to reduce by using Intravenous Magnesium sulfate and Lignocaine. Aim:To evaluate and compare the efcacy of Lignocaine and Magnesium sulphate for attenuating the stress responses to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. Materials and Method: A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted in 50 participants belonging to criteria of ASA I and II ,aged between 18-60 years posted for elective surgery under general anaesthesia. Patients were randomized into two groups: Group L, consisting 25 patients, received intravenous bolus of Lignocaine 2mg/kg, and Group M, consisting 25 patients, received MgSo4, 30 mg/kg. Premedications – inj. Glycopyrolate, Midazolam and Analgesic inj.Fentanyl was given. Study drug was given 90 seconds before induction inj. Propofol and inj.succinylcholine was given to facilitate intubation. Parameters like HR and blood pressure (BP) at baseline, following medication administration, during laryngoscopy, one, three, and ve minutes after intubation were monitored. Student t test was used to test the association and SPSS 20.0 version used for data analysis. Results: A notable increase in HR that persisted for ve minutes after intubation. HR in MgSO4 group increased at rst upon drug administration and peaked one minute after intubation; however, it returned to baseline ve minutes later and began to decline after ten minutes. SBP, DBP, and MAP increased in both groups, however the MgSO4 group noticed a return to baseline ve minutes after intubation, while the Lignocaine group did not experience this. In comparison to the Lignocaine group, there was a consistent decrease in HR (p<0.05) and a decrease in MAP (p<0.05). No complications were observed during the study. Conclusion: Use of MgSo4 was considered as a preferable option over Lignocaine for reducing the stress response during laryngoscopy and intubation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fatima et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: