Exploring Hemodynamic Alterations: The Impact of Post-Induction and Pre-Intubation Urinary Catheterization in General Anesthesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Abstract
General anesthesia with endotracheal intubation is essential for major surgical procedures; however, the associated laryngoscopy and intubation elicit significant hemodynamic responses, posing risks particularly in susceptible patients. Although noxious stimuli are traditionally deferred until after securing the airway, modern anesthetic techniques and depth monitoring may allow for safe pre-intubation interventions that improve operating room efficiency. This study aimed to evaluate whether urinary catheterization, a minor but potentially painful procedure, performed after anesthetic induction and prior to intubation, induces significant hemodynamic alterations. In this prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial, 60 adult patients undergoing elective open abdominal surgery were randomly assigned to either an intervention group (catheterization after induction and before intubation) or a control group (no catheterization). Hemodynamic variables—systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR)—and bispectral index (BIS) were recorded at five predefined time points: before induction, after induction, before and after catheterization, and post-intubation. No significant intergroup differences were observed in HR, DBP, MAP, or BIS at any time point except after intubation. Post-intubation, the control group demonstrated significantly higher SBP and MAP compared to the intervention group (SBP: 130.9±11.8 vs. 122.5±10.4 mmHg, P=0.027; MAP: 99.2±8.3 vs. 91.7±8.1 mmHg, P=0.032). BIS values remained within the target range (40-60) in both groups, indicating consistent anesthetic depth. Urinary catheterization performed after induction and before intubation does not cause significant hemodynamic instability or alter the depth of consciousness. This finding supports the safe incorporation of minor procedural steps prior to airway instrumentation, potentially enhancing intraoperative workflow without compromising patient safety. Validation in broader patient populations is warranted.
2. Kovac AL. Controlling the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. J Clin Anesth 1996;8:63-79.
3. Sarkılar G, Sargın M, Sarıtaş TB, Borazan H, Gök F, Kılıçaslan A, Otelcioğlu Ş. Hemodynamic responses to endotracheal intubation performed with video and direct laryngoscopy in patients scheduled for major cardiac surgery. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015;8:11477.
4. Effatdoost R, Eslami B, Nabavian O, Maghsoudloo M, Pestei K, Samadi S, Dehghan-Tazerjani M. Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in novices: a randomized clinical trial. Acta Med Iran 2023;61:526-30.
5. Eslami B, Makarem J, Mireskandari SM, Eftekhar N, Nazari N, Montaseri A, et al. Analyzing hemodynamic impacts of two-lung versus one-lung ventilation in thoracotomy patients: insights from pleth variability index and ultrasonic cardiac output monitoring in a comparative study. Int Tinnitus J 2024;28:98-103.
6. Sebel PS, Lowdon JD. Propofol: a new intravenous anesthetic. Anesthesiology 1989;71:260-77.
7. Prabhakar H, Singh GP, Mahajan C, Kapoor I, Kalaivani M, Anand V. Intravenous versus inhalational techniques for rapid emergence from anaesthesia in patients undergoing brain tumour surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;9:CD009056.
8. Antognini JF, Carstens E. In vivo characterization of clinical anaesthesia and its components. Br J Anaesth 2002;89:156-66.
9. Leslie K, Clavisi O, Hargrove J. Target-controlled infusion versus manually-controlled infusion of propofol for general anaesthesia or sedation in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;3:CD006059.
10. Short TG, Chui PT. Propofol and midazolam act synergistically in combination. Br J Anaesth 1991;67:539-45.
11. Fahlenkamp AV, Krebber F, Rex S, Grottke O, Fries M, Rossaint R, Cobburn M. Bispectral index monitoring during balanced xenon or sevoflurane anaesthesia in elderly patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010;27:906-11.
12. Wilson M. Causes and management of indwelling urinary catheter-related pain. Br J Nurs 2008;17:232-9.
13. Walsh M, Devereaux PJ, Garg AX, Kurz A, Turan A, Rodseth RN, et al. Relationship between intraoperative mean arterial pressure and clinical outcomes after noncardiac surgery: toward an empirical definition of hypotension. Anesthesiology 2013;119:507-15.
14. Ergenoglu P, Akin S, Cok OY, Eker E, Kuzgunbay B, Turunc T, Aribogan A. Effect of intraoperative paracetamol on catheter-related bladder discomfort: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 2012;73:186-94.
15. Yakaitis RW, Blitt CD, Angiulo JP. End-tidal halothane concentration for endotracheal intubation. Anesthesiology 1977;47:386-7.
16. Yamashita K, Furukawa E, Itami T, Ishizuka T, Tamura J, Miyoshi K. Minimum alveolar concentration for blunting adrenergic responses (MAC-BAR) of sevoflurane in dogs. J Vet Med Sci 2012;74:507-11.
17. Roizen MF, Horrigan RW, Frazer BM. Anesthetic doses blocking adrenergic (stress) and cardiovascular responses to incision—MAC BAR. Anesthesiology 1981;54:390-8.
18. Son HW, Kim DY, Lee OK, et al. Severe hypotension following urethral catheterization during general anesthesia: a case report. Korean J Anesthesiol 2012;62:91-5.
19. Sun S, Wang C, Zhang J, et al. Occurrence and severity of catheter-related bladder discomfort: general anesthesia plus epidural vs general anesthesia in abdominal surgery: a randomized trial. Front Surg 2021;8:658598.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 63 No 5 (2025) | |
| Section | Original Articles | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/acta.v63i5.20349 | |
| Keywords | ||
| General anesthesia Hemodynamic response Urinary catheterization Pre-intubation Bispectral index Randomized controlled trial Surgical efficiency | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
