A Comparative Study of the Effect of Labetalol and Remifentanil on Pain Control After Bariatric Surgery

Background

Finding the optimal combination of anesthetics to maintain hemodynamic stability during surgery can be challenging. Traditionally, strong opioid analgesics such as fentanyl and its newer analogs have been used. However, the use of narcotics is associated with certain side effects.

Objectives

This study compares the effects of labetalol and remifentanil in pain control after bariatric surgery in Hazrat Rasool Akram Hospital.

Methods

This randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 48 laparoscopic bariatric surgery patients. The participants were randomly divided into two groups receiving remifentanil or labetalol. Postoperative pain was measured in the recovery unit using the numerical rating scale (NRS). This score was recorded upon entering recovery, and 30 minutes, 60 minutes, and 120 minutes after surgery for each patient. Also, the duration of anesthesia, the duration of the operation, the recovery time, the dose of the administered opioids, the volume of intravenous fluids, and the dose of administered propofol were recorded for each patient. Nausea and vomiting after the operation were also recorded as outcomes.

Results

There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the mean duration of surgery and anesthesia, dose of the administered anesthetics, recovery period, nausea and vomiting, and the dose of analgesics after the operation. The mean pain intensity during the given period and also the trend of pain intensity changes between the two groups demonstrated no statistically significant differences (P = 0.112). During the operation, 9 subjects (37.5%) in the labetalol group and 16 (66.7%) in the remifentanil group needed more analgesics (rescue drug); in this regard, a significant difference was observed between the two groups (P = 0.043).

Conclusions

Based on the study's findings, there were no significant differences between labetalol and remifentanil in post and perioperative pain control. However, rescue drugs needed to maintain hemodynamic stability during laparoscopic surgery were significantly lower in patients who received labetalol than remifentanil. Postoperative complications were also comparable between labetalol and remifentanil.

Comparing the effects of continuous infusion of esmolol and ramosetron alone and in combination on nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Although PONV is usually mild, severe thing can delay recovery and prolong hospitalization. We aimed to investigate the effects of ramosetron and esmolol, alone and in combination, on PONV, and pain.

METHODS

We enrolled 165 patients in their 20s to 50s who had an American Society of Anesthesiology physical status score of 1 or 2 and were scheduled to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy. They were randomly allocated into 3 groups: groups R, E, and E+R. Patients in group R received 0.3 mg of ramosetron following surgery. Those in group E were intravenously administered a bolus of esmolol (1.0 mg/kg) before endotracheal intubation. They were continuously infused with esmolol during the surgery to maintain their heart rate at 60 to 100 beats per minute and mean blood pressure at 60 to 100 mm Hg, followed by a bolus of esmolol (1.0 mg/kg) following surgery. Patients in group E+R were intravenously administered a bolus of esmolol (1.0 mg/kg) before endotracheal intubation, infused esmolol during surgery, and administered 0.3 mg of ramosetron and a bolus of esmolol (1.0 mg/kg) following surgery. We monitored the PONV stages (none, nausea, retching, and vomiting) and symptom severity in 3 postoperative stages (0-30 minutes, 30 minutes to 6 hours, and 6-24 hours), the latter by using the visual analog scale (VAS). We conducted an analysis of variance to compare VAS scores between groups.

RESULTS

Patients in groups E (mean ± standard deviation VAS score, 3.62 ± 1.00) and E+R (3.66 ± 0.71) exhibited less pain (P < .05) until 30 minutes following surgery compared to group R (5.72 ± 1.41). More patients in group E (28/50, 56%) experienced nausea compared to those in groups R (15/50, 30%) and E+R (8/50, 16%) until 30 minutes after surgery (P < .05). However, there were no differences in the severity of retching and vomiting between the groups in any of the phases (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Despite reducing pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, esmolol did not prevent PONV, whether used alone or in combination with ramosetron.

Intra-operative esmolol and pain following mastectomy: A randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Esmolol is a beta-1 selective blocker that has been shown to reduce postoperative pain. Its antinociceptive effects have not been tested following mastectomy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety, efficacy and antinociception of intra-operative esmolol infusion after mastectomy.

DESIGN

Randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Tertiary referral centre, Brasília, Brazil. Recruitment: July 2015 to July 2017.

PATIENTS

Seventy women scheduled for mastectomy, ASA I to III, aged 18 to 75 years. Four were excluded.

INTERVENTIONS

All underwent general anaesthesia. The intervention group received a bolus of 0.5 mg kg-1 of esmolol over 10 min followed by a continuous infusion of 100 μg kg-1 min-1. The placebo group received saline.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was pain at rest 24 h after mastectomy as measured by a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale.

RESULTS

Pain scores at rest 24 h after mastectomy were lower in esmolol-treated patients compared with placebo (mean difference = -1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI), -2.36 to -0.65, P = 0.001). On arrival in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU), the occurrence of pain was also lower in the esmolol group, at rest and on effort (P = 0.009 and P = 0.013, respectively), on discharge from PACU (P = 0.009 and P = 0.015), 12 h (P = 0.01 and P = 0.007) and on effort in the 24 postoperative hours (P = 0.003). Mean morphine consumption was reduced by 77% in the esmolol group compared with the placebo group (mean difference  = -2.52 mg, 95% CI = -3.67 to -1.38, P < 0.001). The length of hospital stay was shorter for the esmolol group (mean difference = -6.9 h, 95% CI, -13.4 to -0.31, P = 0.040).

CONCLUSION

Esmolol was well tolerated, allowed a notable reduction in the dose of rescue analgesics and demonstrated superior efficacy compared to placebo for pain management after mastectomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials/NCT02466542.

Effects of the ultra-short-acting beta-blocker Esmolol infusion on cardiovascular parameters and quality of postoperative recovery in patients scheduled for elective plastic surgery

Background/Aim: Esmolol is an ultra-short-acting, easily titratable b-adrenergic receptor antagonist used for urgent treatment of hypertension and tachycardia in non-surgical and surgical settings. Aim of this clinical study was to investigate its cardiovascular effects and quality of the emergence from anaesthesia in patients scheduled for elective plastic surgery under general balanced anaesthesia. Methods: A total of 30 ASA I/II patients were randomised in two groups of similar demographic characteristics and baseline values of cardiovascular parameters. Esmolol group received esmolol dissolved in glucose 5 % as an intravenous infusion, 0.3 mg/kg/min during the first 5 min and at a rate of 0.1 mg/kg/ min thereafter. Control patients received the solvent only, at the same rate and volume. General balanced anaesthesia was induced with thiopentone sodium and fentanyl and maintained with nitrous oxide and oxygen. Neuromuscular relaxation was assured with pancuronium bromide and was antagonised at the end of operation with atropine and neostigmine. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate were registered at all critical phases: (1) immediately prior to the induction (baseline value), (2) induction to anaesthesia, (3) tracheal intubation, (4) first skin incision, (5) surgical manipulation with organs, (6) suture of the surgical wound and (7) tracheal extubation. Drug consumption and quality of postoperative recovery were monitored. Results: In most of the critical phases of anaesthesia and operation, patients from the Esmolol group had significantly lower values of cardiovascular parameters than the patients from the Control group. Esmolol-treated patients needed less fentanyl, droperidol and pancuronium and had faster and smoother emergence from anaesthesia than the control patients. Conclusion: Esmolol improved haemodynamics and post-anaesthesia recovery in patients undergoing elective plastic surgery under general balanced anaesthesia.

Perioperative beta-blockers for preventing surgery-related mortality and morbidity in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Thus routine prescription of these drugs in an unselected population remains a controversial issue. A previous version of this review assessing the effectiveness of perioperative beta-blockers in cardiac and non-cardiac surgery was last published in 2018. The previous review has now been split into two reviews according to type of surgery. This is an update, and assesses the evidence in non-cardiac surgery only.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of perioperatively administered beta-blockers for the prevention of surgery-related mortality and morbidity in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Biosis Previews and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science on 28 June 2019. We searched clinical trials registers and grey literature, and conducted backward- and forward-citation searching of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs and quasi-randomized studies comparing beta-blockers with a control (placebo or standard care) administered during the perioperative period to adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery. If studies included surgery with different types of anaesthesia, we included them if 70% participants, or at least 100 participants, received general anaesthesia. We excluded studies in which all participants in the standard care control group were given a pharmacological agent that was not given to participants in the intervention group, studies in which all participants in the control group were given a beta-blocker, and studies in which beta-blockers were given with an additional agent (e.g. magnesium). We excluded studies that did not measure or report review outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 83 RCTs with 14,967 participants; we found no quasi-randomized studies. All participants were undergoing non-cardiac surgery, and types of surgery ranged from low to high risk. Types of beta-blockers were: propranolol, metoprolol, esmolol, landiolol, nadolol, atenolol, labetalol, oxprenolol, and pindolol. In nine studies, beta-blockers were titrated according to heart rate or blood pressure. Duration of administration varied between studies, as did the time at which drugs were administered; in most studies, it was intraoperatively, but in 18 studies it was before surgery, in six postoperatively, one multi-arm study included groups of different timings, and one study did not report timing of drug administration. Overall, we found that more than half of the studies did not sufficiently report methods used for randomization. All studies in which the control was standard care were at high risk of performance bias because of the open-label study design. Only two studies were prospectively registered with clinical trials registers, which limited the assessment of reporting bias. In six studies, participants in the control group were given beta-blockers as rescue therapy during the study period.The evidence for all-cause mortality at 30 days was uncertain; based on the risk of death in the control group of 25 per 1000, the effect with beta-blockers was between two fewer and 13 more per 1000 (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.54; 16 studies, 11,446 participants; low-certainty evidence). Beta-blockers may reduce the incidence of myocardial infarction by 13 fewer incidences per 1000 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.87; 12 studies, 10,520 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in cerebrovascular events (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.81; 6 studies, 9460 participants; low-certainty evidence), or in ventricular arrhythmias (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.47; 5 studies, 476 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Beta-blockers may reduce atrial fibrillation or flutter by 26 fewer incidences per 1000 (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.79; 9 studies, 9080 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, beta-blockers may increase bradycardia by 55 more incidences per 1000 (RR 2.49, 95% CI 1.74 to 3.56; 49 studies, 12,239 participants; low-certainty evidence), and hypotension by 44 more per 1000 (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.51; 49 studies, 12,304 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).We downgraded the certainty of the evidence owing to study limitations; some studies had high risks of bias, and the effects were sometimes altered when we excluded studies with a standard care control group (including only placebo-controlled trials showed an increase in early mortality and cerebrovascular events with beta-blockers). We also downgraded for inconsistency; one large, well-conducted, international study found a reduction in myocardial infarction, and an increase in cerebrovascular events and all-cause mortality, when beta-blockers were used, but other studies showed no evidence of a difference. We could not explain the reason for the inconsistency in the evidence for ventricular arrhythmias, and we also downgraded this outcome for imprecision because we found few studies with few participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for early all-cause mortality with perioperative beta-blockers was uncertain. We found no evidence of a difference in cerebrovascular events or ventricular arrhythmias, and the certainty of the evidence for these outcomes was low and very low. We found low-certainty evidence that beta-blockers may reduce atrial fibrillation and myocardial infarctions. However, beta-blockers may increase bradycardia (low-certainty evidence) and probably increase hypotension (moderate-certainty evidence). Further evidence from large placebo-controlled trials is likely to increase the certainty of these findings, and we recommend the assessment of impact on quality of life. We found 18 studies awaiting classification; inclusion of these studies in future updates may also increase the certainty of the evidence.

Effect of esmolol and lidocaine on agitation in awake phase of anesthesia among children: a double-blind, randomized clinical study

Background:

Sevoflurane is widely used to anesthetize children because of its rapid action with minimal irritation of the airways. However, there is a high risk of agitation after emergence from anesthesia. Strabismus surgery, in particular, can trigger agitation because patients have their eyes covered in the postoperative period. The aim of this study was to determine whether or not esmolol and lidocaine could decrease emergence agitation in children.

Methods:

Eighty-four patients aged 3 to 9 years undergoing strabismus surgery were randomly assigned to a control group (saline only), a group that received intravenous lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg, and a group that received intravenous esmolol 0.5 mg/kg and lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg. Agitation was measured using the objective pain score, Cole 5-point score, and Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale score at the end of surgery, on arrival in the recovery room, and 10 and 30 min after arrival.

Results:

The group that received the combination of esmolol and lidocaine showed lower OPS and RASS scores than the other two groups when patients awoke from anesthesia (OPS = 0 (0–4), RASS = –4 [(–5)–1]) and were transferred to the recovery room (OPS = 0 (0–8), RASS = –1 [(–5)–3]) (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the severity of agitation among the three groups at other time points (P > 0.05).

Conclusions:

When pediatric strabismus surgery is accompanied by sevoflurane anesthesia, an intravenous injection of esmolol and lidocaine could alleviate agitation until arrival in the recovery room.

Trial registration:

Clinical Research Information Service, No. KCT0002925; https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/en/search/search_result_st01.jsp?seq=11532

Perioperative beta-blockers for preventing surgery-related mortality and morbidity

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Thus routine prescription of these drugs in unselected patients remains a controversial issue.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to systematically analyse the effects of perioperatively administered beta-blockers for prevention of surgery-related mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing any type of surgery while under general anaesthesia.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials by searching the following databases from the date of their inception until June 2013: MEDLINE, Embase , the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Biosis Previews, CAB Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Derwent Drug File, Science Citation Index Expanded, Life Sciences Collection, Global Health and PASCAL. In addition, we searched online resources to identify grey literature.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials if participants were randomly assigned to a beta-blocker group or a control group (standard care or placebo). Surgery (any type) had to be performed with all or at least a significant proportion of participants under general anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from all studies. In cases of disagreement, we reassessed the respective studies to reach consensus. We computed summary estimates in the absence of significant clinical heterogeneity. Risk ratios (RRs) were used for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) were used for continuous outcomes. We performed subgroup analyses for various potential effect modifiers.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 88 randomized controlled trials with 19,161 participants. Six studies (7%) met the highest methodological quality criteria (studies with overall low risk of bias: adequate sequence generation, adequate allocation concealment, double/triple-blinded design with a placebo group, intention-to-treat analysis), whereas in the remaining trials, some form of bias was present or could not be definitively excluded (studies with overall unclear or high risk of bias). Outcomes were evaluated separately for cardiac and non-cardiac surgery.CARDIAC SURGERY (53 trials)We found no clear evidence of an effect of beta-blockers on the following outcomes.• All-cause mortality: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.52, 3783 participants, moderate quality evidence.• Acute myocardial infarction (AMI): RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.51, 3553 participants, moderate quality evidence.• Myocardial ischaemia: RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.05, 166 participants, low quality evidence.• Cerebrovascular events: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.58 to 4.02, 1400 participants, low quality evidence.• Hypotension: RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.51, 558 participants, low quality evidence.• Bradycardia: RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.66, 660 participants, low quality evidence.• Congestive heart failure: RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.34, 311 participants, low quality evidence.Beta-blockers significantly reduced the occurrence of the following endpoints.• Ventricular arrhythmias: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.58, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 29, 2292 participants, moderate quality evidence.• Supraventricular arrhythmias: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.53, NNTB five, 6420 participants, high quality evidence.• On average, beta-blockers reduced length of hospital stay by 0.54 days (95% CI -0.90 to -0.19, 2450 participants, low quality evidence).NON-CARDIAC SURGERY (35 trials)Beta-blockers significantly increased the occurrence of the following adverse events.• All-cause mortality: RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.57, 11,413 participants, low quality of evidence, number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 167.• Hypotension: RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.38 to 1.64, NNTH 16, 10,947 participants, high quality evidence.• Bradycardia: RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.48 to 3.36, NNTH 21, 11,033 participants, moderate quality evidence.We found a potential increase in the occurrence of the following outcomes with the use of beta-blockers.• Cerebrovascular events: RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.71, 9150 participants, low quality evidence.Whereas no clear evidence of an effect was found when all studies were analysed, restricting the meta-analysis to low risk of bias studies revealed a significant increase in cerebrovascular events with the use of beta-blockers: RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.82, NNTH 265, 8648 participants.Beta-blockers significantly reduced the occurrence of the following endpoints.• AMI: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.87, NNTB 76, 10,958 participants, high quality evidence.• Myocardial ischaemia: RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77, NNTB nine, 978 participants, moderate quality evidence.• Supraventricular arrhythmias: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94, NNTB 112, 8744 participants, high quality evidence.We found no clear evidence of an effect of beta-blockers on the following outcomes.• Ventricular arrhythmias: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.49, 476 participants, moderate quality evidence.• Congestive heart failure: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.48, 9173 participants, moderate quality evidence.• Length of hospital stay: mean difference -0.45 days, 95% CI -1.75 to 0.84, 551 participants, low quality evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

According to our findings, perioperative application of beta-blockers still plays a pivotal role in cardiac surgery, as they can substantially reduce the high burden of supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias in the aftermath of surgery. Their influence on mortality, AMI, stroke, congestive heart failure, hypotension and bradycardia in this setting remains unclear.In non-cardiac surgery, evidence shows an association of beta-blockers with increased all-cause mortality. Data from low risk of bias trials further suggests an increase in stroke rate with the use of beta-blockers. As the quality of evidence is still low to moderate, more evidence is needed before a definitive conclusion can be drawn. The substantial reduction in supraventricular arrhythmias and AMI in this setting seems to be offset by the potential increase in mortality and stroke.

The effect of esmolol compared to opioids on postoperative nausea and vomiting, postanesthesia care unit discharge time, and analgesia in noncardiac surgery: A meta-analysis

Background and Aims:

Perioperative esmolol as an opioid alternative has been shown to reduce postoperative nausea vomiting using opioid sparing. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare esmolol and opioids on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), time spent in recovery, and analgesia in noncardiac surgeries.

Material and Methods:

OVID Medline (1980–February 2014), OVID EMBASE, EBSCO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing esmolol and opioids on early postoperative recovery and pain intensity during general anesthesia in noncardiac surgeries. The primary outcomes were related to PONV and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge time, whereas secondary outcomes were related to early postoperative pain.

Results:

Eight trials were identified involving 439 patients, 228 of whom received esmolol while 211 received opioids. A random-effects meta-analysis showed that in comparison with opioids, esmolol led to a 69% reduction in the incidence of PONV (odds ratio 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13–0.74, P = 0.008, I² = 44.1%). An increase in the volatile anesthetic requirement was evident in the esmolol group compared with opioid (MD + 0.67% desflurane equivalent, 95% CI 0.27–1.08, P = 0.001, I² =23.5%). There was no statistically significant difference between the esmolol and opioid groups in relation to PACU discharge time, early postoperative pain scores, opioid requirement, and cumulative opioid consumption. Significant heterogeneity was noted between studies. No significant adverse effects were noted.

Conclusion:

Compared with opioids, perioperative esmolol may reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea vomiting and increase the volatile anesthetic requirement. Esmolol administration may not improve the early postoperaive pain intensity. Nonetheless, these findings are limited by the absence of high-quality RCTs and the heterogeneity among studies. Further, large-scale studies are needed to explore these results.

The effect of perioperative esmolol on early postoperative pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Esmolol has been shown to improve postoperative pain and reduce opioid requirements. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of perioperative esmolol as an adjunct on early postoperative pain intensity, recovery profile, and anesthetic requirement. Databases were searched for randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating the effects of esmolol during general anesthesia. Primary outcomes were related to early postoperative pain whereas secondary outcomes were related to emergence time, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and intraoperative anesthetic requirement. Nineteen trials were identified involving 936 patients (esmolol = 470, placebo = 466). In esmolol group, numeric pain scores at rest in the immediate postoperative period were reduced by 1.16 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.97–0.35, I² = 96.7%) out of 10. Opioid consumption was also decreased in the postanesthesia care unit compared with placebo, mean difference of 5.1 mg (95% CI: 7.0–3.2, I² = 96.9%) morphine IV equivalents; a 69% reduction in opioid rescue dosing was noted (odds ratio [OR]: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.16–0.80, I² = 0.0%). A 61% reduction in postoperative nausea and vomiting was also evident (OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.20–0.75, I² = 60.7%). A reduction in propofol induction dose was noted in the esmolol group (mean difference: −0.53 mg/kg, 95% CI: −0.63–−0.44, I² = 0.0%). A decrease in end-tidal desflurane equivalent (mean difference: 1.70%, 95% CI: −2.39–−1.02, I² = 92.0%) and intraoperative opioid usage (fentanyl equivalent, mean difference: 440 μg, 95% CI: −637–−244, I² = 99.6%) was observed in esmolol group. Esmolol had no effect on the emergence time. Perioperative esmolol as an adjunct may reduce postoperative pain intensity, opioid consumption, and postoperative nausea vomiting. Given the heterogeneity, larger clinical trials are warranted to confirm these findings.

[Effect of intraoperative esmolol infusion on anesthetic, analgesic requirements and postoperative nausea-vomitting in a group of laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients]

PURPOSE

Postoperative pain and nausea/vomitting (PNV) are common in laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients. Sympatholytic agents might decrease requirements for intravenous or inhalation anesthetics and opioids. In this study we aimed to analyze effects of esmolol on intraoperative anesthetic-postoperative analgesic requirements, postoperative pain and PNV.

METHODS

Sixty patients have been included. Propofol, remifentanil and vecuronium were used for induction. Study groups were as follows; I - Esmolol infusion was added to maintenance anesthetics (propofol and remifentanil), II - Only propofol and remifentanil was used during maintenance, III - Esmolol infusion was added to maintenance anesthetics (desflurane and remifentanil), IV - Only desflurane and remifentanil was used during maintenance. They have been followed up for 24h for PNV and analgesic requirements. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain was also been evaluated.

RESULTS

VAS scores were significantly lowest in group I (p=0.001-0.028). PNV incidence was significantly lowest in group I (p=0.026). PNV incidence was also lower in group III compared to group IV (p=0.032). Analgesic requirements were significantly lower in group I and was lower in group III compared to group IV (p=0.005). Heart rates were significantly lower in esmolol groups (group I and III) compared to their controls (p=0.001) however blood pressures were similar in all groups (p=0.594). Comparison of esmolol groups with controls revealed that there is a significant decrease in anesthetic and opioid requirements (p=0.024-0.03).

CONCLUSION

Using esmolol during anesthetic maintenance significantly decreases anesthetic-analgesic requirements, postoperative pain and PNV.

Perioperative beta-blockers for preventing surgery-related mortality and morbidity

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Thus routine prescription of these drugs in unselected patients remains a controversial issue.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to systematically analyse the effects of perioperatively administered beta-blockers for prevention of surgery-related mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing any type of surgery while under general anaesthesia.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials by searching the following databases from the date of their inception until June 2013: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Biosis Previews, CAB Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Derwent Drug File, Science Citation Index Expanded, Life Sciences Collection, Global Health and PASCAL. In addition, we searched online resources to identify grey literature.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials if participants were randomly assigned to a beta-blocker group or a control group (standard care or placebo). Surgery (any type) had to be performed with all or at least a significant proportion of participants under general anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from all studies. In cases of disagreement, we reassessed the respective studies to reach consensus. We computed summary estimates in the absence of significant clinical heterogeneity. Risk ratios (RRs) were used for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) were used for continuous outcomes. We performed subgroup analyses for various potential effect modifiers.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 89 randomized controlled trials with 19,211 participants. Six studies (7%) met the highest methodological quality criteria (studies with overall low risk of bias: adequate sequence generation, adequate allocation concealment, double/triple-blinded design with a placebo group, intention-to-treat analysis), whereas in the remaining trials, some form of bias was present or could not be definitively excluded (studies with overall unclear or high risk of bias). Outcomes were evaluated separately for cardiac and non-cardiac surgery. CARDIAC SURGERY (53 trials)We found no clear evidence of an effect of beta-blockers on the following outcomes.• All-cause mortality: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.52, 3783 participants, moderate quality of evidence.• Acute myocardial infarction (AMI): RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.51, 3553 participants, moderate quality of evidence.• Myocardial ischaemia: RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.05, 166 participants, low quality of evidence.• Cerebrovascular events: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.58 to 4.02, 1400 participants, low quality of evidence.• Hypotension: RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.51, 558 participants, low quality of evidence.• Bradycardia: RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.66, 660 participants, low quality of evidence.• Congestive heart failure: RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.34, 311 participants, low quality of evidence.Beta-blockers significantly reduced the occurrence of the following endpoints.• Ventricular arrhythmias: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.58, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 29, 2292 participants, moderate quality of evidence.• Supraventricular arrhythmias: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.53, NNTB six, 6420 participants, high quality of evidence.• On average, beta-blockers reduced length of hospital stay by 0.54 days (95% CI -0.90 to -0.19, 2450 participants, low quality of evidence). NON-CARDIAC SURGERY (36 trials)We found a potential increase in the occurrence of the following outcomes with the use of beta-blockers.• All-cause mortality: RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.54, 11,463 participants, low quality of evidence.Whereas no clear evidence of an effect was noted when all studies were analysed, restricting the meta-analysis to low risk of bias studies revealed a significant increase in all-cause mortality with the use of beta-blockers: RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.59, number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 189, 10,845 participants.• Cerebrovascular events: RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.71, 9150 participants, low quality of evidence.Whereas no clear evidence of an effect was found when all studies were analysed, restricting the meta-analysis to low risk of bias studies revealed a significant increase in cerebrovascular events with the use of beta-blockers: RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.82, NNTH 255, 8648 participants.Beta-blockers significantly reduced the occurrence of the following endpoints.• AMI: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.87, NNTB 72, 10,958 participants, high quality of evidence.• Myocardial ischaemia: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.70, NNTB seven, 1028 participants, moderate quality of evidence.• Supraventricular arrhythmias: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.92, NNTB 111, 8794 participants, high quality of evidence.Beta-blockers significantly increased the occurrence of the following adverse events.• Hypotension: RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.38 to 1.64, NNTH 15, 10,947 participants, high quality of evidence.• Bradycardia: RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.35, NNTH 18, 11,083 participants, moderate quality of evidence.We found no clear evidence of an effect of beta-blockers on the following outcomes.• Ventricular arrhythmias: RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.33, 526 participants, moderate quality of evidence.• Congestive heart failure: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.47, 9223 participants, moderate quality of evidence.• Length of hospital stay: mean difference -0.27 days, 95% CI -1.29 to 0.75, 601 participants, low quality of evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

According to our findings, perioperative application of beta-blockers still plays a pivotal role in cardiac surgery , as they can substantially reduce the high burden of supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias in the aftermath of surgery. Their influence on mortality, AMI, stroke, congestive heart failure, hypotension and bradycardia in this setting remains unclear.In non-cardiac surgery, evidence from low risk of bias trials shows an increase in all-cause mortality and stroke with the use of beta-blockers. As the quality of evidence is still low to moderate, more evidence is needed before a definitive conclusion can be drawn. The substantial reduction in supraventricular arrhythmias and AMI in this setting seems to be offset by the potential increase in mortality and stroke.

Efficacy of intrathecal esmolol on heat-evoked responses in a postoperative pain model

Perioperative tachycardia and hypertension are often treated with esmolol, a short-acting β1-adrenoceptor antagonist. Besides its cardiac effect, esmolol is reported to exert antinociceptive effects. This study examined the efficacy of intrathecal (IT) esmolol on pain responses in a postoperative pain model. Male Sprague-Dawley rats (250-300 g) were anesthetized with sevoflurane and an IT catheter was implanted. Six days after catheter implantation, a postoperative pain model was established by plantar incision under sevoflurane anesthesia. Withdrawal latencies were assessed by applying a focused radiant heat source before plantar incision; 1 day after the incision (before esmolol administration); and 5, 10, and 15 minutes after bolus administration of IT esmolol. Plantar incision produced hypersensitivity in the postoperative pain model expressed as decreased withdrawal latency to heat stimulation (before incision: 13.9 ± 0.29 seconds and 1 day after incision: 6.3 ± 0.26 seconds). These decreased latencies caused by incision were significantly increased by esmolol administration (40 μg, 80 μg) at 5 minutes (10.7 ± 1.16 seconds, 10.5 ± 1.16 seconds). No postoperative antinociceptive effects of esmolol were observed at 10 or 15 minutes. IT administration of esmolol produced antinociceptive effects of short duration in a rat postoperative pain model. These results suggest that IT esmolol could offer a new strategy for managing perioperative pain, although an alternative approach is necessary to lengthen the duration of the analgesia.