Article Sidebar
Published:
Nov 7, 2019DOI:
10.4314/ahs.v19i3.51Keywords:
Article Details
While African Health Sciences has been freely accessible online there have been questions on whether it is Open Access or not. We wish to clearly state that indeed African Health Sciences is Open Access. There are key issues regarding Open Access needing clarification for avoidance of doubt:
- 1. Henceforth, papers in African Health Sciences will be published under the CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution License) 4.0 International. See details on https://creativecomons.org/)
- 2. The copyright owners or the authors grant the 3rd party (perpetually and in advance) the right to disseminate, reproduce, or use the research papers in part or in full, format/medium as long as:
- No substantive errors are introduced in the process
- Attribution of authorship and correct citation details are given
- The referencing details are not changed.
Should the papers be reproduced in part, this must be clearly stated.
- 3. The papers will be freely and universally accessible online in an easily readable format such as XML in at least one widely recognized open access repository such as PUBMED CENTRAL.
B. ABRIDGED LICENCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUTHORS AND African Health Sciences
I submitted my manuscript to African Health Sciences and would like to affirm that:
1.0 I am authorized by my co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
2.0 I guarantee, on behalf of self and co-authors:
- That the paper is original, and has not been published in any other peer-reviewed journal; nor is it under consideration by other journal (s). It does not infringe existing copyright or any other person’s rights
- That we are/I am the sole author(s) of the paper and with authority to enter into this agreement. My granting rights to African Health Sciences is not in breach of any other obligation
- That the paper contains nothing unlawful, or libelous. Nor anything that would constitute a breach of contract, confidence or commitment given to secrecy, if published
- That I/we have taken care to ensure the integrity of the article.
3.0 I and all co-authors, agree that the paper, if accepted for publication, shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. (see https://creativecommons.org/)
Main Article Content
Effect of low-dose ketamine versus fentanyl on attenuating the haemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing general anaesthesia: a prospective, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial
Abstract
Background: The use of drugs to attenuate the haemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation is the standard of care during elective surgery. Current evidence is conflicting concerning the best agent and optimal dose for this purpose. In the majority of cases, fentanyl is widely utilized to attenuate haemodynamic responses. Ketamine, an established available drug, has been scarcely studied in this regard at low doses and against varying doses of other common agents.
Objective: To compare the overall occurrence of hypertension and tachycardia immediately pre-intubation (post-induction) until 10 minutes post intubation between the study group receiving fentanyl at 1.0 µg/kg and the other receiving ketamine at 0.5 mg/kg, to compare the occurrence of post-induction hypotension and the occurrence of neuropsychiatric phenomena during emergence between the two groups.
Methods: One hundred and eight ASA I and II patients aged 18-65 years scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia were randomized into two groups: Control group: received fentanyl 1.0 µg/kg intravenously. Intervention group: received ketamine 0.5 mg/kg intravenously. General anaesthesia was standardized in both groups. The patients and physicians administering anaesthesia were blinded to the study. Haemodynamic responses were evaluated by determining heart rate and blood pressure immediately before laryngoscopy and at 2.5, 5, 7.5 and 10 minutes. Neuropsychiatric phenomena were assessed upon recovery from anaesthesia.
Results: One hundred and eight ASA I and II patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery were included in this study, 54 participants (50%) in the fentanyl arm and 54 (50%) in the ketamine arm. Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between the groups. There were more hypertensive episodes in the ketamine arm (11%) compared to the fentanyl arm (1.85%), but not achieving statistical significance: Fisher’s exact test, p=0.06. There was no significant difference in the number of episodes of tachycardia between the Ketamine group 7/54 (13%) and the fentanyl group, 6/54 (11%); x2=0.05, p=0.82. Hypotensive episodes were more common in those who received Fentanyl, 41/54 (76%), compared to ketamine recipients, 21/54 (39%), X2=16.9, p<0.001. The use of Ketamine was associated with less episodes of hypotension, adjusted odds ratio = 0.18 (95% confidence interval 0.07, 0.45).
Conclusion: We conclude, based upon findings in this study group, that there is no difference in the occurrence of hypertension with the use ketamine at 0.5 mg/kg in combination with Propofol at 2.0 mg/kg. In this regard, ketamine provides a viable alternative to fentanyl at 1.0 µg/kg for attenuating the pressor response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. Additionally, our results suggest that ketamine may protect against post-induction (pre-laryngoscopy) hypotension.
Keywords: Low-dose ketamine, fentanyl, laryngoscopy, endotracheal, intubation, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial.
