A Comparison of the Effects of Esmolol and Dexmedetomidine on the Clinical Course and Cost for Controlled Hypotensive Anaesthesia

Comparison of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine versus Esmolol for Attenuation of Hemodynamic Response to Tracheal Intubation after Rapid Sequence Induction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The present study aims to investigate whether intravenous dexmedetomidine shows superiority to esmolol for hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation after rapid sequence induction. In the present meta-analysis, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for trials comparing dexmedetomidine with esmolol for the attenuation of the hemodynamic response to intubation. Ten trials were selected in the present meta-analysis. Compared to esmolol, the use of dexmedetomidine maintains stable heart rates (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 1 min, 3 min, and 5 min after tracheal intubation. Dexmedetomidine causes less hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation after rapid sequence induction compared with esmolol.

Nitroglycerine, esmolol and dexmedetomidine for induced hypotension during functional endoscopic sinus surgery: A comparative evaluation

Background and Aim:

Induced hypotension limits intra-operative blood loss to provide better visibility of the surgical field and diminishes the incidence of major complications during functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). We aimed at comparing nitroglycerine, esmolol and dexmedetomidine for inducing controlled hypotension in patients undergoing FESS.

Material and Methods:

One hundred and fifty American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II adult patients undergoing FESS under general anesthesia were randomly allocated to three groups of 50 patients each. Group E received esmolol in a loading and maintenance dose of 1 mg/kg over 1 min and 0.5-1.0 mg/kg/h, respectively. Group D received a loading dose of dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg over 10 min followed by an infusion 0.5-1.0 μg/kg/h, and group N received nitroglycerine infusion at a dose of 0.5-2 μg/kg/min so as to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) between 60 and 70 mmHg in all the groups. The visibility of the surgical field was assessed by surgeon using Fromme and Boezaart scoring system. Hemodynamic variables, total intra-operative fentanyl consumption, emergence time and time to first analgesic request were recorded. Any side-effects were noted. The postoperative sedation was assessed using Ramsay Sedation Score.

Result:

The desired MAP (60-70 mmHg) could be achieved in all the three study groups albeit with titration of study drugs during intra-operative period. No significant intergroup difference was observed in Fromme's score during the intra-operative period. The mean total dose of fentanyl (μg/kg) used was found to be significantly lower in group D compared to groups E and N (1.2 ± 0.75 vs. 3.6 ± 1.3 and 2.9 ± 1.1 respectively). The mean heart rate was significantly lower in group D compared to groups E and N at all times of measurement (P < 0.05). The MAP was found to be significantly lower in group D compared to groups E and N after infusion of study drugs, after induction, just after intubation and 5 min after intubation (P < 0.05). The Ramsay Sedation Scores were significantly higher in group D (score 3 in 46%) when compared to group E (score 2 in 50%) and group N (score 2 in 54%) (P < 0.001). The emergence time was significantly lower in group E and group N compared to group D. Time to first analgesic request was significantly longer in group D.

Conclusion:

Dexmedetomidine and esmolol provided better hemodynamic stability and operative field visibility compared to nitroglycerin during FESS. Dexmedetomidine provides an additional benefit of reducing the analgesic requirements and providing postoperative sedation.