<p><b>BACKGROUND: </b>Traditional awake extubation leads to respiratory complications and hemodynamic response which are detrimental in neurosurgery, ENT surgery and patients with comorbidities.</p><p><b>AIMS: </b>The primary objective was to compare the respiratory complications and hemodynamic stress response between traditional awake extubation of a endotracheal tube (ETT) and that following exchange extubation of ETT by using a laryngeal mask airway (LMA).</p><p><b>SETTINGS AND DESIGN: </b>This prospective randomized study was conducted in a Tertiary Care Centre in 60 American Society of Anesthesiologists I and II patients coming for general surgery.</p><p><b>MATERIALS AND METHODS: </b>Patients were randomized by permuted blocks into traditional awake extubation group and exchange extubation group. At the end of surgery in traditional group, awake extubation of ETT was done. In exchange group, 0.3 mg/kg propofol was administered, and the ETT was exchanged for a LMA. Awake extubation of LMA was then performed. Respiratory complications such as bucking, coughing, desaturation and the need for airway maneuvers and hemodynamic response were noted in both groups.</p><p><b>ANALYSIS TOOLS: </b>Chi-square test, independent sample t- and paired t-tests were used as applicable.</p><p><b>RESULTS: </b>Incidence of respiratory complication was 93.3% in traditional extubation while it was only 36.7% in exchange extubation group (P < 0.001). Hemodynamic response measured immediately at extubation in terms of heart rate, systolic blood pressure (BP), diastolic BP, mean arterial pressure, and rate pressure product were all significantly lesser in exchange group when compared to traditional extubation.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION: </b>Exchange extubation with LMA decreases respiratory complications and hemodynamic stress response when compared to traditional awake extubation.</p>
R. Kannan Suppiah, Rajan, S., Paul, J., and Kumar, L., “Respiratory and hemodynamic outcomes following exchange extubation with laryngeal mask airway as compared to traditional awake extubation.”, Anesth Essays Res, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 212-7, 2016.