BACKGROUND: The advent of laparoscopic surgery has benefited the patient and surgeon; however creation of pneumoperitoneum for same has bearings during the perioperative period. These effects of pneumoperitoneum are associated with significant haemodynamic changes, increasing the morbidity of the patient. AIM: The present study compared the efficacy of dexmedetomidine and esmolol on hemodynamic responses during laparoscopic cholecystectomy Materials and Methods: A total of 90 patients aged 20-60 y, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II, of either sex, planned for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included. The patients were randomly divided into three groups of 30 each. Group D received dexmedetomidine loading dose 1 mcg/kg over a period of 15 min and maintenance 0.5 mcg/kg/h throughout the pneumoperitoneum. Group E received esmolol loading dose 1 mg/kg over a period of 5 min and maintenance 0.5 mg/kg/h throughout the pneumoperitoneum. Group C received same volume of normal saline. MEASUREMENTS: Heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded preoperative, after study drug, after induction, after intubation, after pneumoperitoneum at 15 min intervals, post pneumoperitoneum and postoperative period after 15 min. Propofol induction dose, intraoperative fentanyl requirement and sedation score were also recorded.RESULTS: In group D, there was no statistically significant increase in HR and blood pressure after pneumoperitoneum at any time intervals, whereas in Group E, there was a statistical significant increase in MAP after pneumoperitoneum at 15, 45, and 60 min only and HR during the whole pneumoperitoneum period. There was a significant decrease in induction dose of propofol and intraoperative fentanyl requirement in Group D and E, compared to Group C (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine is more effective than esmolol for attenuating the hemodynamic response to pneumoperitoneum in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dexmedetomidine and esmolol also reduced requirements of anaesthetic agents.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The present study compared the efficacy of esmolol and dexmedetomidine for attenuation of the sympathomimetic response to laryngoscopy and intubation in elective neurosurgical patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 90 patients aged 20-60 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II, either sex, scheduled for elective neurosurgical procedures were included in this study. Patients were randomly allocated to three equal groups of 30 each comprising of Control group (group C) 20 ml 0.9% saline intravenous (IV), group dexmedetomidine (group D) 1 μg/kg diluted with 0.9% saline to 20 ml IV and group esmolol (group E) 1.5 mg/kg diluted with 0.9% saline to 20 ml IV. All the drugs were infused over a period of 10 min and after 2 min induction of anesthesia done. Heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure were recorded baseline, after study drug administration, after induction and 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, and 15 min after orotracheal intubation.RESULTS: In group D, there was no statistically significant increase in HR and blood pressure after intubation at any time intervals, whereas in group E, there was a statistical significant increase in blood pressure after intubation at 1, 2, and 3 min only and HR up to 5 min. CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg is more effective than esmolol for attenuating the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation in elective neurosurgical patients.
CONTEXT: Laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation produce sympathetic overdrive by catecholamine release resulting in hypertension and tachycardia. Various agents are being tried to combat the intubation response over years. AIMS: This study is aimed at comparing dexmedetomidine which is a highly selective alpha-2 agonist with an ultra-short acting beta blocker, esmolol to see which among the two is better in attenuating the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This was a prospective randomized double-blind control study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Sixty patients scheduled for general anesthesia were divided into two groups, D and E with 30 patients in each group. Group-D patients received dexmedetomidine 0.5 mcg/kg and Group-E patients received esmolol 0.5 mg/kg as intravenous premedication over 5 min before a rapid sequence induction and tracheal intubation. Systolic, diastolic and mean arterial pressures along with heart rate were measured using invasive arterial line at various time points. The percentage change of hemodynamic parameters at those time points from the baseline was compared between the groups. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Descriptive and inferential statistical methods were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The percentage change of all hemodynamic parameters from base line were less in the dexmedetomidine group than in esmolol group at all-time points of measurement. However, a statistically significant difference was observed often at the time points within 1 min after tracheal intubation. CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine is superior to esmolol in attenuating the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation.