RizkyMayoHutama 22010110130195 Bab8KTI PDF

DAFTAR PUSTAKA
1. Morgan GE.Clinical Anesthesiology, 4th ed. New York: Mc Graw-Hill
Companies, Inc; 2006. pp. 91-116
2. Aitkenhead AR, Smith G.Textbook Of Anaesthesia. 2nd ed. Edinburgh:
Churchill Livingstone;1990. p.365
3. Ayu R. Perbedaan Pengaruh Premedikasi Berbagai dosis Klonidin
Terhadap Respon Kardiovaskuler pada Laringoskopi dan Intubasi
Endotrakhea [tesis]. Semarang: Bagian Anestesi Fakultas Kedokteran
Universitas Diponegoro; 2013.
4. Hagberg, C, Georgi R, Krier C. Complications of managing the airway.
Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology; 2005;19(4):641-59
5. Sener EB, Ustun E, Ustun B, Sarihasan B. Haemodynamic responses and
upper airway morbidity following tracheal intubation in patients with
hypertension: Conventional laryngoscopy versus an intubating laryngeal
mask airway. Clinics; 2012;67(1):49-54
6. Siddiqui, Khan FZH. Haemodynamic response to Tracheal Intubation via
intubating laryngeal mask airway versus Direct Laryngoscopic Tracheal
Intubation. J Pak Med Assoc;2007;57(1): 11-4.
7. Simpson GD, Ross MJ, Mckeown DW, Ray DC. Tracheal intubation in
the critically ill: a multi-centre national study of practice and
complications. Br J Anaesth; 2012;108(5): 792-9.

8. Montazari K, Naghibi K, Hashemi SJ. Comparison of hemodynamic
changes after insertion of laryngeal mask airway, face mask and
endotracheal intubation. Acta Medica Iranica; 2004;42(6): 437.
9. Flemming DC, Orkin Fk, Kirby RR. Hazards of tracheal intubation. In:
Nikolous G, Robert RK. Complication in anesthesiology. 2nd ed.
Philadelphia: Lippincottraven; 1996. p. 229
10. Shribman AJ, Achola KJ. Cardiovascular and catecholamine responses to
laryngoscopy with and without tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth;
1997;59(3): 295-9
11. Ansari M, Javadi H, Pourbehi M, Moqharrabi M, Rayzan M, Semnani S,
Et al. The Association of rate pressure product (RPP) and myocardial
perfusion imaging (MPI) findings: a preliminary study. Perfusion;2012;
27(3):207-13
12. Hassan HG, el-Sharkawy TY, Renck H, Mansour G, Fouda A.
Hemodynamic and catecholamine responses to laryngoscopy with vs
without endotracheal intubation. Acta Anaesthesiol Scan.1991;35(5):442-7
13. Fujii Y, Tanaka H, Toyooka H. Circulatory responses to laryngeal mask
airway insertion or tracheal intubation in normotensive and hypertensive
patients. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia;1995;42(1): 32-6
14. Stone DJ, Gal TJ. Airway management. In: Miller RD. Anesthesia 5thed.
Philadelphia: Churchill livingstone; 2000. pp.1414-48
15. Rosenbalt WH. Airway management.In: Barash PG, Cullen BF, Stoelting
RK.Clinical Anesthesia. 5th ed. Philadelphia: William & Wilkins; 2006.
pp. 1247-346
16. Lecanwasam H, Dunn PF. Airway evaluation and management. In: Huford
WE, Bailin MT, Davidson JK. Clinical anesthesia procedures of the
massachusets general hospital. 6th.ed. Philadelphia: William & Wilkins;
2002. pp. 568-621
17. Mallick A, Klein H, Mosse E. Prevention of cardiovascular response to
tracheal intubation. Br J Anesth; 1996: 296-7
18. Sukron. Perbandingan Efek Magnesium Sulfat 30 mg/kgBB Intravena
dengan Lidokain 1,5 mg/kgBB terhadap Respon Kardiovaskuler Akibat
Tindakan Laringoskopi dan Intubasi [tesis]. Semarang: Bagian Anestesi
Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Diponegoro; 2009
19. Singh M. Stress response and anesthesia altering the pre and post-
operative management. Indian J Anesth; 2003; 47(6):427-34
20. Gulec H, Cakan T, Yaman T, Yaman H, Kilinc AS, Basar H. Comparison
of hemodynamic and metabolic stress responses caused by endotracheal
tube and Proseal laryngeal mask airway in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Journal of Research in Medical Sciences; 2012;17(2):148-53
21. Handerson J. Airway mangement in adult. In: Miller RD,editor.
Anesthesia 7th ed. Philadelphia: Churchil Livingstone;2010. pp. 1573-610
22. Mahjoubifar M, Boroojeny SB. Hemodynamic changes during orotracheal
intubation with glidescope and dyrect laryngoscope. Iranian Red Crecent
Medical Journal; 2010; 12(4): 406-8

23. Malde AD, Sarode V. Attenuation of the haemodynamic response to
endotracheal intubation : ventanyl versus lignocaine. The journal of
anaesthesiology; 2007;12(1): 5-9
24. Henderson J. Tracheal intubation of adult patient. In: Caldent F, Pearce A.
Core topics in airway management. New York: Cambridge university
press; 2005: 69-80
25. Fuji Y, Saitoh Y, Shinji. Combined diltiazem and lidocaine reduces
cardiovascular response to tracheal extubation and anesthesia emergence
in hyperternsive patients. Can J Anesth; 1999: 46:952-6
26. Muchtar A, Suyatna FD. Obat antiaritmia. Dalam: Ganiswarna S,
Setiabudy R, Suyatna FD, Purwantyastuti, Nafriadi, editor. Farmakologi
dan terapi. Edisi 4. Bagian Farmakologi Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas
Indonesia. Jakarta: Gaya Baru; 1995: 289-314
27. Peralta R, Poterack KA, Kelly RF. Toxicity lidocaine.Medscape.[internet]
2008.c2014 [updated 2014 Jan 8 ; cited 2014 Feb 2].available from:
http//www.emedicene.com/article/167309-overview
28. Stoelting RK. Cardiac antidysrhythhmic drugs. In: Stoelting RK.
Pharmacology and physiology in anesthetic practice. 4th ed. Philadelphia:
Lippincott William & Wilkins; 2006. pp. 370-86
29. Mikawa K, Nishina K, Maekawa N, Obara H. Comparison of nicardipine,
dilitiazem, and verapamyl for controlling the cardiovascular responses to
tracheal intubation. Br J anesth;1996;76(2):221-6

30. Stackhouse RA, Infosino A. Airway Management. In: Miller RD, Pardo
MC, editors. Basic of Anesthesia. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier
Saunders;2011. pp.219-25
31. Atmawan DB, Villyastuti YW, Harahap MS. Perbedaan Tekanan Darah,
Laju Jantung dan Rate Pressure Product (RPP) Pada Pemberian Lidokain
1,5 Mg/Kgbb Intravena Sebelum Intubasi [tesis].Semarang: Bagian
Anestesi Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Diponegoro; 2009
32. Jerry AD, Susan AD. Understanding Anesthesia Equipment 5th Edition.
Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Willkins; 2007. pp. 21-40
33. Wikipedia, Diver D. Laryngoscopes-Miller blades [internet]. Wikipedia
the free encyclopedia; c2014 [updated 2013 Jan 17 ; cited 2014 Feb 16].
Available from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Laryngoscopes-
Miller_blades.JPG#filehistory
34. Wikipedia, Sasata. Macintosh Blades [internet]. Wikipedia the free
encyclopedia; c2014 [updated 2010 Aug 13 ; cited 2014 Feb 16].
Available from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Macintosh_Blades.
jpgmiller
35. Oklahoma State University,KoJCH. Airway Management and Ventilation
[internet]. Oklahoma (USA): Oklahoma State University;c2014 [updated
2014 February 16; cited 2014 February 16]. Available from :
http://www.cvm.okstate.edu/courses/vmed5412/Lect22.asp
36. Mitchell V, Patel A. Tracheal tubes. In: Chalder I, Pearce A, editors. Core
topics in airway management. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press;
2005: 57-67
37. Sulistiyono D, Villyastuti YW, Susilowati D. Intubasi endotrakea. Dalam :
Sunarjo, Jatmiko HD, editor. Anestesiologi. Semarang. Ikatan Dokter
Spesialis Anestesiologi Indonesia; 2010: 197-202
38. Dept of Anaesthesia & Intensive Care, The Chinese University,Sally
F.Intubation [internet]. Hongkong: The Chinese University; c2014
[updated 2014 February 4; cited 2014 February 16]. Available from :
http://www.aic.cuhk.edu.hk/web8/Intubation.htm
39. Lestari AP. Perbedaan Pengaruh Pemberian Propofol Dan Tionpental
Terhadap Respon Hemodinamik Pada Induksi Anestesi Umum [tesis].
Semarang: Bagian Anestesi Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Diponegoro;
2010
40. Smith P, Smith FJ, Becker PJ. Hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy
with and without tracheal intubation. Southern African Journal of
Anesthesia and Analgesia; 2008; 14(3):23-6

51
Lampiran 1. Ethical clearance

52
Lampiran 2. Lembar penelitian

53
54
Lampiran 3. Data primer

55
Lampiran 4. Output SPSS
A. OUTPUT SPSS SAMPEL PENELITIAN
Umur
NPar Tests
Mann-Whitney Test
Ranks
Kelompok N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Umur > 20 detik 19 20.58 391. 00
< 20 detik 19 18.42 350. 00
Total 38
Test S tatisticsb
Umur
Man n-Whitn ey U 160 .000
Wilcoxon W 350 .000
Z -.59 9
A symp. S ig. (2 -tailed) .549
E xa ct Sig. [ 2*(1-tailed a
.563
S ig.)]
a. Not corrected for ties.
b. Group ing V ariable : Kelo mpok
BB
T-Test
Group Statistics
Std. Error
Kelomp ok N Me an Std. Deviation Me an
BB > 2 0 detik 19 59. 79 11. 703 2.6 85
< 2 0 detik 19 58. 11 8.7 04 1.9 97
56
Inde pende nt Sample s Test
BB
Equal vari ances Equal vari ances
assum ed not assumed
Leven e's T est for F .540
Equality o f Va riances Sig. .467
t-test for Equ ality of t .503 .503
Mea ns df 36 33.2 49
Sig. (2-t ailed) .618 .618
Mea n Differen ce
1.68 4 1.68 4
Std. Error Differe nce

3.34 6 3.34 6
95% Co nfiden ce Interval Lower -5.1 02 -5.1 21

of th e Differen ce Upper 8.47 0 8.49 0
TB
NPar Tests
Mann-Whitney Test
Ranks

TB > 20 detik 19 19.26 366.00
< 20 detik 19 19.74 375.00
Total 38
Test S tatisticsb
TB
Wilcoxon W 366 .000
Z -.13 3
.908
S ig.)]
57
Crosstabs
ASA * Kelompok
Cross tab
Kelomp ok
> 2 0 detik < 2 0 detik T otal
ASA I Count 10 11 21
Exp ected Count 10. 5 10. 5 21. 0
% within Ke lompo k 52. 6% 57. 9% 55. 3%
% o f To tal 26. 3% 28. 9% 55. 3%
II Count 9 8 17
Exp ected Count 8.5 8.5 17. 0
% within Ke lompo k 47. 4% 42. 1% 44. 7%
% o f To tal 23. 7% 21. 1% 44. 7%
T otal Count 19 19 38
Exp ected Count 19. 0 19. 0 38. 0
% within Ke lompo k 100 .0% 100 .0% 100 .0%
% o f To tal 50. 0% 50. 0% 100 .0%
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. Exa ct Sig. Exa ct Sig.

Value df (2-sided ) (2-sided ) (1-sided )
Pearson Chi-Square .106 b 1 .744
a
Continu ity Correction .000 1 1.00 0
Likeliho od Ratio .106 1 .744
Fisher's Exact T est 1.00 0 .500
Line ar-by-Li near
.104 1 .748
Asso ciation
N of Valid Cases 38
a. Comput ed onl y f or a 2x2 table
b. 0 cell s (.0% ) have e xpected cou nt less th an 5. T he m inimu m expecte d count is 8.
50.
58
Jenis kelamin * Kelompok
Cross tab
K elompo k
> 20 detik < 20 detik T otal
Jenis kel amin Laki-laki Count 8 6 14
E xp ected Count 7.0 7.0 14.0
% within Kelo mpok 42.1 % 31.6 % 36.8 %
% o f Tot al 21.1 % 15.8 % 36.8 %
P erempu an Count 11 13 24
% within Kelo mpok 57.9 % 68.4 % 63.2 %
% o f Tot al 28.9 % 34.2 % 63.2 %
T otal Count 19 19 38
% within Kelo mpok 100 .0% 100 .0% 100 .0%
% o f Tot al 50.0 % 50.0 % 100 .0%
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. Exa ct Sig. Exa ct Sig.

Value df (2-sided ) (2-sided ) (1-sided )
Pearson Chi-Square .452 b 1 .501
a
Continu ity Correction .113 1 .737
Likeliho od Ratio .454 1 .501
Fisher's Exact T est .737 .369
Line ar-by-Li near
.440 1 .507
Asso ciation
N of Valid Cases 38
a. Comput ed onl y f or a 2x2 table
b. 0 cell s (.0% ) have e xpected cou nt less th an 5. T he m inimu m expecte d count is 7.
00.
59
B. OUTPUT SPSS TDS
Lama Intubasi > 20 detik
T-Test
Paired Sam ples Statis tics
Std. Error
Mea n N Std. Deviation Mea n
Pair T DS.pre 115 .89 19 11.8 46 2.71 8
1 T DS.1 141 .89 19 26.7 27 6.13 2
Pair T DS.pre 115 .89 19 11.8 46 2.71 8
2 T DS.2 134 .89 19 23.9 12 5.48 6
Pair T DS.pre 115 .89 19 11.8 46 2.71 8
3 T DS.5 126 .68 19 18.5 47 4.25 5
Pair T DS.pre 115 .89 19 11.8 46 2.71 8
4 T DS.10 118 .26 19 12.7 10 2.91 6
Paire d Sa mples Corre lations
N Correlat ion Sig.

Pair 1 T DS.pre & T DS.1 19 .39 8 .09 2
Pair 2 T DS.pre & T DS.2 19 .61 3 .00 5
Pair 3 T DS.pre & T DS.5 19 .55 8 .01 3
Pair 4 T DS.pre & T DS.10 19 .26 5 .27 3
Paire d Sa mples Te st
Pair 1 Pair 2 Pair 3 Pair 4

T DS.pre T DS.pre T DS.pre T DS.pre
- T DS.1 - T DS.2 - T DS.5 - T DS.10
Paired Diffe rences Mea n -26. 000 -19. 000 -10. 789 -2.3 68
Std. Deviation 24.5 54 19.0 96 15.4 62 14.9 04
Std. Error M ean
5.63 3 4.38 1 3.54 7 3.41 9
95% Co nfiden ce Interval Lower -37. 835 -28. 204 -18. 242 -9.5 52
of th e Differen ce Upper -14. 165 -9.7 96 -3.3 37 4.81 5
t -4.6 16 -4.3 37 -3.0 42 -.69 3
df 18 18 18 18
Sig. (2-t ailed) .000 .000 .007 .497
60
Lama Intubasi < 20 detik
T-Test
Paired Samples Statistics
Std. Error
Mean N Std. Dev iation Mean
Pair TDS.pre 113. 53 19 12.812 2.939
1 TDS.1 130. 26 19 24.062 5.520
Pair TDS.pre 113. 53 19 12.812 2.939
2 TDS.5 120. 11 19 20.415 4.683
Pair TDS.pre 113. 53 19 12.812 2.939
3 TDS.10 113. 26 19 16.374 3.756
Paired Samples Correlati ons
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 TDS.pre & TDS.1 19 .627 .004
Pair 2 TDS.pre & TDS.5 19 .439 .060
Pair 3 TDS.pre & TDS.10 19 .581 .009
Pair 1 Pair 2 Pair 3

T DS.pre T DS.pre T DS.pre
- T DS.1 - T DS.5 - T DS.10
Paired Differences Mea n -16. 737 -6.5 79 .263
Std. Deviation 18.8 82 18.7 45 13.7 35
Std. Error Me an
4.33 2 4.30 0 3.15 1
95% Co nfidence Interval Lower -25. 838 -15. 614 -6.3 57
of th e Difference Upper -7.6 36 2.45 6 6.88 3
t -3.8 64 -1.5 30 .084
df 18 18 18
Sig. (2-t ailed) .001 .143 .934
61
NPar Tests
Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
Ranks
N Mea n Rank Sum of Ranks

T DS.2 - T DS.pre Negative Ranks 4a 7.38 29.5 0
Positive Ran ks 15 b 10.7 0 160 .50
T ies 0c
T otal 19
a. T DS.2 < T DS.pre
b. T DS.2 > T DS.pre
c. T DS.2 = T DS.pre
Test S tatisticsb
T DS .2 -
T DS .pre
Z -2.6 37 a
A symp. S ig. (2 -tailed ) .008
a. B ased on neg ative ranks.
b. Wilcoxon Sign ed Ranks T est
T-Test
Group Statisti cs
Std. Error
Kelomp ok N Mea n Std. Deviation Mea n
T DS.pre > 20 detik 19 115 .89 11.8 46 2.71 8
< 20 detik 19 113 .53 12.8 12 2.93 9
62
Independent Sample s Test
T DS.pre
Equal variances Equal variances
Leven e's T est for F .08 3
Equality o f Va riances Sig. .77 5
t-te st for Equ ality of t .59 2 .59 2
Me ans df 36 35. 781
Sig. (2-t ailed) .55 8 .55 8
Me an Differen ce
2.3 68 2.3 68

4.0 03 4.0 03

of t he Differen ce Upper 10. 487 10. 489
T-Test
Group Statisti cs
Std. Error
T DS.1 > 2 0 detik 19 141 .89 26. 727 6.1 32
< 2 0 detik 19 130 .26 24. 062 5.5 20
T DS.1
t-test for Equ ality of t 1.41 0 1.41 0
Mea ns df 36 35.6 10
Sig. (2-t ailed) .167 .167
Mea n Differen ce
11.6 32 11.6 32

8.25 0 8.25 0

63
NPar Tests
Mann-Whitney Test
Ranks

TDS.2 > 20 detik 19 21.95 417. 00
< 20 detik 19 17.05 324. 00
Total 38
Test S tatisticsb
T DS .2
Wilcoxon W 324 .000
Z -1.3 59
.181
S ig.)]
T-Test
Group Statisti cs
Std. Error
T DS.5 > 2 0 detik 19 126 .68 18. 547 4.2 55
< 2 0 detik 19 120 .11 20. 415 4.6 83
64
T DS.5
Mea ns df 36 35.6 74
Sig. (2-t ailed) .305 .305
Mea n Differen ce
6.57 9 6.57 9

6.32 8 6.32 8

T-Test
Group Statisti cs
Std. Error
T DS.10 > 20 detik 19 118 .26 12.7 10 2.91 6
< 20 detik 19 113 .26 16.3 74 3.75 6
T DS.10
Mea ns df 36 33.9 14
Sig. (2-t ailed) .300 .300
Mea n Differen ce
5.00 0 5.00 0

4.75 5 4.75 5

65
C. OUTPUT SPSS LAJU JANTUNG
Lama Intubasi > 20 detik
T-Test
Paired Samples Statistics
Std. Error
Mean N Std. Dev iat ion Mean
Pair HR.pre 79.05 19 8.270 1.897
1 HR.1 86.21 19 12.925 2.965
Pair HR.pre 79.05 19 8.270 1.897
2 HR.2 85.42 19 14.611 3.352
Pair HR.pre 79.05 19 8.270 1.897
3 HR.5 82.11 19 13.042 2.992
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 HR.pre & HR. 1 19 .904 .000
Pair 2 HR.pre & HR. 2 19 .890 .000
Pair 3 HR.pre & HR. 5 19 .644 .003
P aire d Sa mples Te st
P air 1 P air 2 P air 3

HR.pre - HR.pre - HR.pre -
HR.1 HR.2 HR.5
P aired Diffe rences Mea n -7.1 58 -6.3 68 -3.0 53
S td. Deviation 6.49 2 8.16 6 9.97 5
S td. E rror M ean 1.48 9 1.87 4 2.28 8
95% Co nfiden ce Interval Lower -10. 287 -10. 304 -7.8 60
of th e Differen ce Upper -4.0 29 -2.4 32 1.75 5
t -4.8 06 -3.3 99 -1.3 34
df 18 18 18
S ig. (2-t ailed) .000 .003 .199
66
NPar Tests
Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
Ranks
N Mea n Rank Sum of Ran ks

HR.10 - HR.pre Negative Ranks 10 a 8.80 88.0 0
Positi ve Ran ks 8b 10.3 8 83.0 0
T ies 1c
T otal 19
a. HR.10 < HR.pre
b. HR.10 > HR.pre
c. HR.10 = HR.pre
Test S tatisticsb
HR.10 -
HR.pre
Z -.10 9 a
A symp. S ig. (2 -tailed ) .913
a. B ased on positive ran ks.
b. Wilcoxon Sign ed Ranks T est
Lama Intubasi < 20 detik
T-Test
P aire d Sa mples Statistics
S td. E rror
Mea n N S td. Deviation Mea n
P air HR.pre 77.1 1 19 9.61 4 2.20 6
1 HR.1 85.3 2 19 14.6 37 3.35 8
P air HR.pre 77.1 1 19 9.61 4 2.20 6
2 HR.2 83.8 9 19 15.7 65 3.61 7
P air HR.pre 77.1 1 19 9.61 4 2.20 6
3 HR.5 80.3 2 19 14.5 30 3.33 3
P air HR.pre 77.1 1 19 9.61 4 2.20 6
4 HR.10 76.3 7 19 12.4 02 2.84 5
67
Paire d Sa mple s Correlations
N Correla tion Sig.

Pair 1 HR.pre & HR.1 19 .69 3 .00 1
Pair 2 HR.pre & HR.2 19 .72 3 .00 0
Pair 3 HR.pre & HR.5 19 .60 4 .00 6
Pair 4 HR.pre & HR.10 19 .46 9 .04 3
P aire d Sa mples Te st
P air 1 P air 2 P air 3 P air 4

HR.pre - HR.pre - HR.pre - HR.pre -
HR.1 HR.2 HR.5 HR.10
P aired Differences Mea n -8.2 11 -6.7 89 -3.2 11 .737
S td. Deviation 10.5 70 11.0 43 11.6 12 11.5 89
S td. E rror Me an 2.42 5 2.53 3 2.66 4 2.65 9
95% Co nfiden ce Interval Lower -13. 305 -12. 112 -8.8 07 -4.8 49
of th e Differen ce Upper -3.1 16 -1.4 67 2.38 6 6.32 3
t -3.3 86 -2.6 80 -1.2 05 .277
df 18 18 18 18
S ig. (2-t ailed) .003 .015 .244 .785
T-Test
Group Statistic s
Std. Error
Kelompo k N Mea n Std. Deviation Mea n
HR.pre > 20 detik 19 79.0 5 8.27 0 1.89 7
< 20 detik 19 77.1 1 9.61 4 2.20 6
HR.pre
Mea ns df 36 35.2 13
Sig. (2-t ailed) .508 .508
Mea n Differen ce
1.94 7 1.94 7

2.90 9 2.90 9

68
T-Test
Group Statistics
Std. Error
HR.1 > 2 0 detik 19 86. 21 12. 925 2.9 65
< 2 0 detik 19 85. 32 14. 637 3.3 58
HR.1
Mea ns df 36 35.4 57
Sig. (2-t ailed) .843 .843
Mea n Differen ce
.895 .895

4.48 0 4.48 0

T-Test
Group Statistics
Std. Error
HR.2 > 2 0 detik 19 85. 42 14. 611 3.3 52
< 2 0 detik 19 83. 89 15. 765 3.6 17
69
HR.2
Mea ns df 36 35.7 94
Sig. (2-t ailed) .759 .759
Mea n Differen ce
1.52 6 1.52 6

4.93 1 4.93 1

T-Test
Group Statistics
Std. Error
HR.5 > 2 0 detik 19 82. 11 13. 042 2.9 92
< 2 0 detik 19 80. 32 14. 530 3.3 33
HR.5
Mea ns df 36 35.5 88
Sig. (2-t ailed) .692 .692
Mea n Differen ce
1.78 9 1.78 9

4.47 9 4.47 9

70
NPar Tests
Mann-Whitney Test
Ranks

HR.10 > 20 detik 19 21.58 410. 00
< 20 detik 19 17.42 331. 00
Total 38
Test S tatisticsb
HR.10
Wilcoxon W 331 .000
Z -1.1 55
.258
S ig.)]
D. OUTPUT SPSS RPP
T-Test
Paire d Sa mples Sta tistics
Std. Error
Pair RPP.pre 917 1.42 19 138 9.882 318 .861
1 RPP.1 123 23.05 19 327 7.733 751 .964
Pair RPP.pre 917 1.42 19 138 9.882 318 .861
2 RPP.2 116 89.16 19 348 2.057 798 .839
Pair RPP.pre 917 1.42 19 138 9.882 318 .861
3 RPP.5 104 82.11 19 260 8.639 598 .463
Pair RPP.pre 917 1.42 19 138 9.882 318 .861
4 RPP.10 930 1.00 19 192 4.590 441 .531
71
Paired Sa mples Correl ations
N Correlat ion Sig.

Pair 1 RPP.pre & RPP.1 19 .652 .002
Pair 2 RPP.pre & RPP.2 19 .788 .000
Pair 3 RPP.pre & RPP.5 19 .430 .066
Pair 4 RPP.pre & RPP.10 19 .400 .089
Pair 1 Pair 2 Pair 3 Pair 4

RPP.pre RPP.pre RPP.pre RPP.pre
- RPP.1 - RPP.2 - RPP.5 - RPP.10
Paired Differences Mea n -315 1.63 -251 7.7 -131 0.68 -129 .579
Std. Deviation 259 5.209 253 5.830 237 0.206 186 9.244
Std. Error Me an
595 .382 581 .759 543 .762 428 .834
95% Co nfidence Interval Lower -440 2.48 -374 0.0 -245 3.09 -103 0.53
of th e Difference Upper -190 0.78 -129 5.5 -168 .282 771 .368
t -5.2 93 -4.3 28 -2.4 10 -.30 2
df 18 18 18 18
Sig. (2-t ailed) .000 .000 .027 .766
T-Test
Paire d Sa mples Sta tistics
Std. Error
Pair RPP.pre 880 9.47 19 182 9.016 419 .605
1 RPP.1 105 18.68 19 340 8.552 781 .975
Pair RPP.pre 880 9.47 19 182 9.016 419 .605
2 RPP.2 105 92.89 19 305 6.632 701 .239
Pair RPP.pre 880 9.47 19 182 9.016 419 .605
3 RPP.5 977 0.05 19 290 3.928 666 .207
Pair RPP.pre 880 9.47 19 182 9.016 419 .605
4 RPP.10 871 8.26 19 220 2.898 505 .379
72
Paired Sa mples Correl ations
N Correlat ion Sig.

Pair 1 RPP.pre & RPP.1 19 .362 .128
Pair 2 RPP.pre & RPP.2 19 .672 .002
Pair 3 RPP.pre & RPP.5 19 .641 .003
Pair 4 RPP.pre & RPP.10 19 .547 .015
P aired Sa mples Te st
P air 1 P air 2 P air 3 P air 4

RPP .pre RPP .pre RPP .pre RPP .pre
- RPP .1 - RPP .2 - RPP .5 - RPP .10
P aired Differences Mea n -170 9.21 -178 3.42 -960 .579 91.2 11
S td. Deviation 323 2.532 227 4.874 222 8.886 194 7.137
S td. E rror Me an
741 .594 521 .892 511 .342 446 .704
95% Con fidence Interval Lower -326 7.24 -287 9.88 -203 4.87 -847 .279
of th e Di fference Upper -151 .180 -686 .967 113 .710 102 9.700
t -2.3 05 -3.4 17 -1.8 79 .204
df 18 18 18 18
S ig. (2-ta iled) .033 .003 .077 .840
T-Test
Group Statistic s
Std. Error
RPP.pre > 20 detik 19 917 1.42 138 9.882 318 .861
< 20 detik 19 880 9.47 182 9.016 419 .605
Independent Sample s Test
RPP.pre
Equal variances Equal variances
Leven e's T est for F .52 0
Equality o f Va riances Sig. .47 5
t-te st for Equ ality of t .68 7 .68 7
Me ans df 36 33. 590
Sig. (2-t ailed) .49 7 .49 7
Me an Differen ce
361 .947 361 .947

527 .011 527 .011
95% Co nfiden ce Interval Lower -70 6.880 -70 9.550

of t he Differen ce Upper 143 0.775 143 3.444
73
T-Test
Group Statisti cs
Std. Error
RPP.1 > 20 detik 19 123 23.05 327 7.733 751 .964
< 20 detik 19 105 18.68 340 8.552 781 .975
RPP.1
Mea ns df 36 35.9 45
Sig. (2-t ailed) .105 .105
Mea n Differen ce
180 4.368 180 4.368

108 4.866 108 4.866
95% Co nfiden ce Interval Lower -395 .842 -395 .959

of th e Differen ce Upper 400 4.579 400 4.696
T-Test
Group Statisti cs
Std. Error
RPP.2 > 20 detik 19 116 89.16 348 2.057 798 .839
< 20 detik 19 105 92.89 305 6.632 701 .239
74
RPP.2
Mea ns df 36 35.4 06
Sig. (2-t ailed) .309 .309
Mea n Differen ce
109 6.263 109 6.263

106 2.958 106 2.958

T-Test
Group Statisti cs
Std. Error
RPP.5 > 20 detik 19 104 82.11 260 8.639 598 .463
< 20 detik 19 977 0.05 290 3.928 666 .207
RPP.5
Mea ns df 36 35.5 94
Sig. (2-t ailed) .432 .432
Mea n Differen ce
712 .053 712 .053

895 .539 895 .539

75
T-Test
Group Statistic s
Std. Error
RPP.10 > 20 detik 19 930 1.00 192 4.590 441 .531
< 20 detik 19 871 8.26 220 2.898 505 .379
RPP.10
Mea ns df 36 35.3 63
Sig. (2-t ailed) .391 .391
Mea n Differen ce
582 .737 582 .737

671 .087 671 .087
95% Co nfiden ce Interval Lower -778 .291 -779 .143

76
Lampiran 5. Biodata
Nama : Rizky Mayo Hutama
NIM : 22010110130195
Tempat/tanggal lahir : Semarang, 8 Agustus 1992
Jeniskelamin : Laki - laki
Alamat : JL. Mangunharjo Raya no.1 Semarang
No Telp : -
No HP : 08112991112
Email : Rizkymayohutama@gmail.com
Riwayat Pendidikan
1.SD : SD H ISRIATI SEMARANG Lulus tahun: 2004
2.SMP : SMPN3 SEMARANG Lulus tahun: 2007
3.SMA : SMAN 1 SEMARANG Lulus tahun: 2010
4.FK UNDIP : 2010

RizkyMayoHutama 22010110130195 Bab8KTI PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RizkyMayoHutama 22010110130195 Bab8KTI PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DAFTAR PUSTAKA

1. Morgan GE.Clinical Anesthesiology, 4th ed. New York: Mc Graw-Hill

Companies, Inc; 2006. pp. 91-116

2. Aitkenhead AR, Smith G.Textbook Of Anaesthesia. 2nd ed. Edinburgh:

Churchill Livingstone;1990. p.365

3. Ayu R. Perbedaan Pengaruh Premedikasi Berbagai dosis Klonidin

Terhadap Respon Kardiovaskuler pada Laringoskopi dan Intubasi

Endotrakhea [tesis]. Semarang: Bagian Anestesi Fakultas Kedokteran

Universitas Diponegoro; 2013.

4. Hagberg, C, Georgi R, Krier C. Complications of managing the airway.

Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology; 2005;19(4):641-59

5. Sener EB, Ustun E, Ustun B, Sarihasan B. Haemodynamic responses and

upper airway morbidity following tracheal intubation in patients with

hypertension: Conventional laryngoscopy versus an intubating laryngeal

mask airway. Clinics; 2012;67(1):49-54

6. Siddiqui, Khan FZH. Haemodynamic response to Tracheal Intubation via

intubating laryngeal mask airway versus Direct Laryngoscopic Tracheal

Intubation. J Pak Med Assoc;2007;57(1): 11-4.

the critically ill: a multi-centre national study of practice and

complications. Br J Anaesth; 2012;108(5): 792-9.

changes after insertion of laryngeal mask airway, face mask and

endotracheal intubation. Acta Medica Iranica; 2004;42(6): 437.

Nikolous G, Robert RK. Complication in anesthesiology. 2nd ed.

Philadelphia: Lippincottraven; 1996. p. 229

10. Shribman AJ, Achola KJ. Cardiovascular and catecholamine responses to

laryngoscopy with and without tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth;

11. Ansari M, Javadi H, Pourbehi M, Moqharrabi M, Rayzan M, Semnani S,

Et al. The Association of rate pressure product (RPP) and myocardial

perfusion imaging (MPI) findings: a preliminary study. Perfusion;2012;

12. Hassan HG, el-Sharkawy TY, Renck H, Mansour G, Fouda A.

Hemodynamic and catecholamine responses to laryngoscopy with vs

without endotracheal intubation. Acta Anaesthesiol Scan.1991;35(5):442-7

13. Fujii Y, Tanaka H, Toyooka H. Circulatory responses to laryngeal mask

airway insertion or tracheal intubation in normotensive and hypertensive

patients. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia;1995;42(1): 32-6

Philadelphia: Churchill livingstone; 2000. pp.1414-48

WE, Bailin MT, Davidson JK. Clinical anesthesia procedures of the

massachusets general hospital. 6th.ed. Philadelphia: William & Wilkins;

2002. pp. 568-621

17. Mallick A, Klein H, Mosse E. Prevention of cardiovascular response to

tracheal intubation. Br J Anesth; 1996: 296-7

18. Sukron. Perbandingan Efek Magnesium Sulfat 30 mg/kgBB Intravena

dengan Lidokain 1,5 mg/kgBB terhadap Respon Kardiovaskuler Akibat

Tindakan Laringoskopi dan Intubasi [tesis]. Semarang: Bagian Anestesi

Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Diponegoro; 2009

operative management. Indian J Anesth; 2003; 47(6):427-34

20. Gulec H, Cakan T, Yaman T, Yaman H, Kilinc AS, Basar H. Comparison

of hemodynamic and metabolic stress responses caused by endotracheal

tube and Proseal laryngeal mask airway in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Journal of Research in Medical Sciences; 2012;17(2):148-53

21. Handerson J. Airway mangement in adult. In: Miller RD,editor.

Anesthesia 7th ed. Philadelphia: Churchil Livingstone;2010. pp. 1573-610

22. Mahjoubifar M, Boroojeny SB. Hemodynamic changes during orotracheal

intubation with glidescope and dyrect laryngoscope. Iranian Red Crecent

Medical Journal; 2010; 12(4): 406-8

endotracheal intubation : ventanyl versus lignocaine. The journal of

anaesthesiology; 2007;12(1): 5-9

24. Henderson J. Tracheal intubation of adult patient. In: Caldent F, Pearce A.

Core topics in airway management. New York: Cambridge university

press; 2005: 69-80

25. Fuji Y, Saitoh Y, Shinji. Combined diltiazem and lidocaine reduces

cardiovascular response to tracheal extubation and anesthesia emergence

in hyperternsive patients. Can J Anesth; 1999: 46:952-6