---

  Background & Objectives : Laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation may lead to tachycardia, hypertension and dysrhythmia or myocardial ischemia. In this double blind study, the effects of midazolam and lidocaine on hemodynamic response to endotracheal intubation have been examined.

  Methods : 52 ASA class one patients, aged 20-50, who were candidate for elective inguinal hernia surgery with general anesthesia, were randomly assigned to two groups. All patients received normal saline or Ringer's lactate solution (5ml/kg) about 5-10 minutes before induction of anesthesia and were preoxygenated for 3 minutes. Group 1 received midazolam (0.05 mg/kg) and group 2 received lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg) during 3 minutes prior to intubation. Anesthesia was induced with fentanyl (100 µ g) and thiopental (5 mg/kg) and trachea was intubated by the aid of succinyl choline (1.5 mg/kg). Anesthesia was maintained with halothane (0.5-0.75%) and equal proportions of nitrous oxide and oxygen. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate were recorded before premedication and intubation, as well as immediately two and five minutes after intubation. The data were analyzed by SPSS software using paired t-test.

  Results : After intubation�Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, MAP and heart rate increased in both groups compared to the baseline values. The difference in increasing diastolic blood pressure and MAP between the two groups was significant (p<0.05), but the difference in increasing systolic blood pressure and heart rate between two groups was not statistically significant. The increase in diastolic blood pressure and MAP in group 1 was significantly more than group 2 (p<0.05).

  Conclusion : Clinically, midazolam was as much effective as lidocaine in controlling response to intubations. Consequently it can be used as an alternative lidocaine in intubations. It has also other priorities such as amnesia, anti-anxiety and anti-agitation.

---

Background & objectives: Endoscopy is an invasive and painful procedure. The use of sedatives, especially in children, is expanding. The aim of this study was to compare the sedative effects of ketofol and the combination of midazolam-ketamine in upper endoscopy in children aged 1 to 14 years who referred to Taleghani Hospital in Gorgan.
Methods: In this study, 55 children entered the study 1 to 14 years after obtaining parental consent. They were then divided into two groups, ketamine-propofol (KP) and ketamine-midazolam (KM), by simple randomization. At all stages of the work, patients underwent cardiac and respiratory monitoring. All hemodynamic parameters and ramsy sedation score (RSS) were recorded for all participants in the 5 time periods before, during and after endoscopy. ANOVA test and bonferroni tracking test were used in spss software to analyze and compare data.
Results: 54.5% were male patients. The ANOVA test showed that the scores of the two groups at the time of the study had a statistically significant difference (p=0.02). In the KM group, the mean blood pressure and heart rate of patients increased at all times compared to before the intervention (p=0.005). Blood pressure in the KP group had a steady trend over time (p<0.001).
Conclusion: There was a statistically significant difference between the scores of the two groups and the group (KM) had higher scores, but the use of two drug regimens Propofol-Ketamine and Ketamine-Midazolam caused a good sedation in pediatric endoscopy. The propofol-ketamine compound resulted in greater hemodynamic stability in cardiovascular parameters during and after endoscopy