MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027301864 · doi:10.1016/s0034-7094(11)70052-6

Comparison between the Hemodynamic Parameters of Rigid Laryngoscopy and Lighted Stylet in Patients with Coronariopathies

2011· article· en· W2027301864 on OpenAlexaff
Marcello Fonseca Salgado Filho, Victor Hugo Cordeiro, Suzana Mota, Marina Prota, Marina Natalino Lopez, Renzo A. de Lara

Bibliographic record

VenueBrazilian Journal of Anesthesiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsOccupational and Environmental Medical Association of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStyletMedicineAnesthesiaTracheal intubationIntubationLaryngoscopyHeart rateMean arterial pressureHemodynamicsCentral venous pressureBlood pressureSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anesthesiologists are responsible for airway management whenever they assume the anesthesia of a patient. In this study, we compare the hemodynamic parameters of rigid laryngoscopy and lighted stylet in patients with coronariopathies. This randomized clinical trial included 40 patients undergoing myocardial revascularization assigned into two groups: lighted stylet and rigid laryngoscope. Besides time of tracheal intubation in each group, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, changes in ST segment, and central venous pressure were evaluated during patient preparation, 1 minute and 5 minutes after anesthetic induction, and 1 minute after tracheal intubation. Both groups were homogenous regarding demographic data. Time of tracheal intubation in the rigid laryngoscope group (24 ± 5 sec) was lower than that of the lighted stylet group (28 ± 7 sec), but without significance. Heart rate showed a reduction in both groups during anesthetic induction (p < 0.05), but 1 minute after tracheal intubation the heart rate increased to levels close to baseline levels in both groups (p > 0.05). In the rigid laryngoscope group mean arterial pressure increased after tracheal intubation to levels close to those observed during patient preparation (p > 0.05), while in the lighted stylet group mean arterial pressure remained below baseline levels (p < 0.05). Central venous pressure increased on both groups at all times (p < 0.05). It was possible to observe that both techniques are safe for tracheal intubation in patients with coronariopathies. However, lighted stylet has fewer repercussions on mean arterial pressure. O anestesiologista está em contato com o manejo da via aérea sempre que assume uma anestesia. Neste estudo, avaliamos os parâmetros hemodinâmicos entre o laringoscópio rígido e o estilete luminoso em pacientes coronariopatas. Ensaio clínico randomizado conduzido em 40 pacientes submetidos à revascularização do miocárdio alocados em dois grupos: estilete luminoso e laringoscópio rígido. Avaliaram-se frequência cardíaca, pressão arterial média, alterações do segmento ST e pressão venosa central durante o preparo do paciente, 1 minuto e 5 minutos após a indução anestésica e 1 minuto após a intubação traqueal, além do tempo de intubação traqueal em cada grupo. Os grupos mostraram-se homogêneos em relação aos dados demográficos. O tempo de intubação traqueal para o grupo laringoscópio rígido (24 ± 5 s) foi menor que no grupo estilete luminoso (28 ± 7 s), porém sem significância. A frequência cardíaca diminui nos dois grupos durante a indução (p < 0,05), mas 1 minuto após a intubação, a frequência cardíaca aumentou para valores próximos ao momento do preparo em ambos os grupos (p > 0,05). No grupo laringoscópio rígido, a pressão arterial média aumentou após a intubação traqueal para valores próximos ao momento do preparo do paciente (p > 0,05), enquanto no grupo estilete luminoso a pressão arterial média ficou abaixo dos valores basais (p < 0,05). A pressão venosa central aumentou em ambos os grupos em todos os momentos (p < 0,05). Neste estudo, é possível observar que ambas as técnicas são seguras para intubação traqueal em pacientes coronariopatas. Contudo, o estilete luminoso apresenta menor repercussão na pressão arterial média. El anestesiólogo está en contacto con el manejo de la vía aérea siempre que aplica una anestesia. En este estudio, estamos evaluando los parámetros hemodinámicos entre el laringoscopio rígido y el estilete luminoso en pacientes con coronariopatías. Este ensayo clínico randomizado fue llevado a cabo con la participación de 40 pacientes sometidos a la revascularización del miocardio, y divididos en dos grupos: estilete luminoso y laringoscopio rígido. Se evaluaron la frecuencia cardíaca, la presión arterial promedio, alteraciones del segmento ST y la presión venosa central durante la preparación del paciente, 1 minuto después de la inducción anestésica, 5 minutos después de la inducción anestésica y 1 minuto después de la intubación traqueal, además del tiempo de intubación traqueal en cada grupo. Los grupos fueron homogéneos con relación a los datos demográficos. El tiempo de intubación traqueal para el grupo laringoscopio rígido (24 ± 5 seg), fue menor que en el grupo estilete luminoso (28 ± 7 seg), sin embargo con p > 0,05. La frecuencia cardíaca se reduce en los dos grupos durante la inducción (p < 0,05), sin embargo, 1 minuto después de la intubación, la frecuencia cardíaca aumentó alcanzando valores próximos al momento de la preparación en los dos grupos (p > 0,05). En el grupo laringoscopio rígido la presión arterial promedio aumentó después de la intubación traqueal para valores próximos al momento de la preparación del paciente (p > 0,05), mientras que en el grupo estilete luminoso la presión arterial promedio quedó por debajo de los valores basales con p < 0,05. La presión venosa central aumentó en ambos grupos durante todos los momentos (p < 0,05). En este estudio, pudimos observar que ambas técnicas son seguras para la intubación traqueal en pacientes con coronariopatías. Sin embargo, el EL presenta una menor repercusión en la presión arterial promedio.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrazilian Journal of AnesthesiologySame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207