ACA App
Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia
Home | About us | Editorial Board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Submission | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact | Login 
Users online: 901 Small font size Default font size Increase font size Print this article Email this article Bookmark this page
 


 

 
     
    Advanced search
 

 
 
     
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed140    
    Printed5    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded20    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 22  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 353-357
The comparison of dexmedetomidine, esmolol, and combination of dexmedetomidine with esmolol for attenuation of sympathomimetic response to laryngoscopy and intubation in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting


Department of Anaesthesiology, Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication4-Oct-2019
 

   Abstract 


Background: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of dexmedetomidine, esmolol, and combination of both on control of sympathetic response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation in coronary artery disease patients. Material and Methods: A prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical study included 90 patients scheduled for elective coronary artery bypass surgery. Patients were randomly allocated into three groups of 30 each: dexmedetomidine group (Group D) 1 μg/kg, esmolol group (Group E) 2 mg/kg, and group dexmedetomidine with esmolol (Group DE) 0.5 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine with 1 mg/kg of esmolol. Each drug was diluted with 0.9% normal saline to 20 ml volume and infused in 10 min before induction of anesthesia. Hemodynamic changes (heart rate [HR], arterial blood pressure, and pulmonary artery pressure) were compared at various time intervals as follows-baseline, after study drug, after induction, and 1, 3, and 5 min after intubation. Statistical analysis included analysis of variance, Chi-square, and Fisher's exact test. Results: In Group DE, there was no significant increase in HR at all-time intervals, and the HR was stable compared to Group D and Group E. Blood pressure values were comparable in all groups except in Group E at 5 min. The pulmonary arterial pressures were statistically less in DE group except at 3 and 5 min. Conclusions: The combination of dexmedetomidine and esmolol group has beneficial effect on HR and pulmonary arterial pressures but has no additional advantage with respect to arterial blood pressure when compared with dexmedetomidine and esmolol groups in patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting.

Keywords: Dexmedetomidine, endotracheal intubation, esmolol, hemodynamic response, laryngoscopy

How to cite this article:
Singh D, Jagannath S, Priye S, Mudassar A S. The comparison of dexmedetomidine, esmolol, and combination of dexmedetomidine with esmolol for attenuation of sympathomimetic response to laryngoscopy and intubation in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Card Anaesth 2019;22:353-7

How to cite this URL:
Singh D, Jagannath S, Priye S, Mudassar A S. The comparison of dexmedetomidine, esmolol, and combination of dexmedetomidine with esmolol for attenuation of sympathomimetic response to laryngoscopy and intubation in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Card Anaesth [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Oct 23];22:353-7. Available from: http://www.annals.in/text.asp?2019/22/4/353/268548





   Introduction Top


Airway control during general anesthesia is usually achieved by laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation which invariably leads to mechanical and chemical stimulation. The mechanical stimulus leads to reflex stimulation of cardiovascular and respiratory systems.[1] This reflex peaks within 1 min and ends in about 5–10 min after intubation. While chemical stimulus activates the sympathetic catecholamines release, leading to hypertension, tachycardia, and arrhythmia.[2],[3] The increase in arterial blood pressure begins within 5 s of laryngoscopy and reaches its peak at about 1–2 min.[4] Tachycardia leads to an increase in oxygen consumption of the myocardium, decrease diastolic filling, and reduced coronary blood supply, thereby causing more stress on the myocardium as compared to hypertension.[3]

Myocardial ischemia might occur during the induction/intubation sequence in patients with coronary artery disease. Intraoperative ischemia has been associated with a high rate of perioperative myocardial infarction.[5] A variety of drugs has been used to control this hemodynamic response such as narcotics, alpha-2 agonists, vasodilators, beta blockers, calcium channels blocker, and local anesthetic. However, no modality was devoid of drawbacks and limitations.[4]

Dexmedetomidine is an imidazole derivative and highly selective alpha2-adrenergic receptor agonist, and it produces dose-dependent sedation, anxiolysis, and analgesia due to its effect on the central adrenergic outflow. Dexmedetomidine is also known to blunt the hemodynamic response to endotracheal intubation resulting in a decrease in the incidence of myocardial is chemia during cardiac surgery.[5]

Esmolol is an ultra-short acting beta-adrenergic receptor antagonist. While it inhibits beta1 receptors of the myocardium, it also inhibits beta2 receptors of smooth muscles of bronchial and vascular walls at higher doses.[6] Esmolol minimizes the increase in HR and myocardial contractility (primary determinants of myocardial oxygen consumption) by attenuating the positive chronotropic and inotropic effects of increased adrenergic activity.[6]

In this study, we compared the effects of dexmedetomidine, esmolol, and the combination of both on control of hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation in patients with coronary artery disease.


   Materials and Methods Top


A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study was designed with a total of 90 patients scheduled for elective coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) between the ages of 21–65 years. The study was conducted between August 2015 and October 2016 after receiving approval by the Institutional Ethical Committee. This trial was registered at Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI) ctri.nic.in under number CTRI/2017/11/010355. A written informed consent was obtained from all the patients. Exclusion criteria included anticipated difficult intubation, emergency surgery, left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, left ventricular aneurysm, associated valvular lesions, left main coronary artery disease, severe systemic diseases involving the renal and hepatic systems, preoperative left bundle branch block, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and intubation attempt lasting longer than 20 s.

All the patients were evaluated before surgery. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, diuretics, and calcium channel blockers were stopped on the day of surgery and beta blockers were continued to the day of surgery as per our institutional protocol. All the patients received oral alprazolam 0.5 mg and ranitidine 150 mg the night before and 2 h before surgery.

All the patients were randomly allocated to three groups of 30 each with the help of computer-generated table of random numbers to receive following drugs before induction: Group dexmedetomidine(Group D, n = 30) received 1 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine, Group esmolol (Group E, n = 30) received 2 mg/kg of esmolol, Group dexmedetomidine and esmolol (Group DE, n = 30) received 0.5 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine and esmolol 1 mg/kg. All the study drugs were diluted to a total volume of 20 ml with normal saline (0.9%) and were given as intravenous (IV) infusion over a period of 10 min. All the drugs were prepared in an identical syringe and infused using syringe pump (Injectomat Agilia, Fresenius Kabi, France) by an independent anesthesiologist not aware of the study. We avoided placebo group in our study because the study was on the patient with coronary artery disease and it is well-established fact that laryngoscopy increases the stress response, which is detrimental to such patients.

In the operation room under local anesthesia peripheral venous, central venous and arterial cannulation was performed. Electrocardiogram, pulse oximetry, intra-arterial pressure, pulmonary arterial pressure, nasopharyngeal temperature, urine output, and capnography were monitored.

After the study drug infusion, general anesthesia was given using midazolam 40 μg/kg IV, fentanyl 3 μg/kg IV, and etomidate 0.3 mg/kg IV. Lack of verbal command was considered as the end-point of induction. Neuromuscular blockade was achieved by rocuronium bromide 1 mg/kg IV to facilitate intubation with appropriate size cuffed endotracheal tube after 2 min of mask ventilation by a single operator in all the cases.

Heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), systolic pulmonary arterial pressure (SPAP), diastolic pulmonary arterial pressure (DPAP), and mean pulmonary arterial pressure (MPAP) were recorded. These parameters were recorded as follows: B-baseline, before the start of infusion of study drugs; AD-after the study drug infusion; AI-2 min after induction and just before intubation; 1 min/min after intubation; 3 min/min after intubation; and 5–5 min after intubation.

Significant hypotension was defined in this study as SBP <25% of baseline value. Significant bradycardia was defined as HR <50 beats/min. None of the patients met the above-said definition and needed intervention. There was no change in the study design after the commencement of the study and no dropouts from the study.

Based on outcome variables, namely MAP with least mean difference 10 mmHg, the sample size of 30 in each group was adequate for this study (with 90% statistical power and 5% level of significance). Descriptive and inferential statistical analysis has been carried out in the present study. Results on continuous measurements are presented on mean ± standard deviation (Min-Max) and results on categorical measurements are presented in Number (%). Analysis of variance has been used to find the significance of study parameters between three or more groups of patients; Chi-square/Fisher's Exact test has been used to find the significance of study parameters on the categorical scale between two or more groups. The statistical software, namely SPSS 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA), and R environment ver. 3.2.2 were used for the analysis of the data. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


   Results Top


A total of 96 patients were assessed for the eligibility, out of which 90 patients were included in the study after randomization to complete the study. Six patients were not included in this study because of patient's refusal. There was no significant difference among the groups with regard to demographic variables as well as risk factors and preoperative cardiovascular medications [Table 1]. Baseline hemodynamic parameters were comparable in all the groups.
Table 1: Demographic, comorbidity, and medication

Click here to view


There was a statistically significant difference in HR seen in Group DE after administration of the drug, after induction and at 1, 3, and 5 min after intubation (P < 0.05) [Table 2]. There was no significant difference in SBP, DBP, and MAP between the groups except for a statistically significant decrease in DBP and MAP at 5 min after intubation in Group E [Table 3]. The SPAP, DPAP, and MPA P values were significantly lower in the DE group after study drug infusion and at all times intervals of observation (P < 0.05) except at 1 and 3 min in SPAP and at 3 min after intubation in DPAP [Table 4].
Table 2: Comparison of heart rate (beats/min)

Click here to view
Table 3: Comparison of arterial blood pressure (mmHg)

Click here to view
Table 4: Comparison of pulmonary artery pressure (mmHg)

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation during general anesthesia cause a significant hemodynamic disturbance due to the stimulation of the sympathoadrenal system. For patients, especially who are undergoing CABG surgery, tachycardia and hypertension due to the stress of laryngoscopy and intubation increase the risk of perioperative myocardial ischemia and infarction.

It has been noted that rise in blood pressure and HR manifests during direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation after 15 s and reach peak if laryngoscopy is continued for 30–45 s.[6] In our study, the duration of laryngotracheal intubation was limited to 20 s.

Most of the previous clinical studies have compared only blood pressure and HR at different time intervals before and after laryngoscopy. In our study, we compared pulmonary artery pressures in addition to arterial blood pressure and HR to better understand the hemodynamic changes associated with study drugs.

Dexmedetomidine has analgesic and sedative effects in addition to blunting the hemodynamic response to endotracheal intubation and shown to reduce the extent of myocardial ischemia during cardiac surgery.[5] Esmolol minimizes the increase in HR and myocardial contractility (primary determinants of myocardial oxygen consumption) by attenuating the positive chronotropic and inotropic effects of increased adrenergic activity.[6]

Various studies have used dexmedetomidine in the dose ranging from 0.5 to 10 μg/kg and concluded that significant bradycardia and hypotension occurred at higher doses.[5],[7],[8] The hypotension and bradycardia caused by dexmedetomidine, theoretically, could limit its usage in previously beta-blocked ischemia heart patients. A small number of studies have used dexmedetomidine as an anesthetic adjuvant in CABG patients receiving beta blockers and reported that the intraoperative incidence of bradycardia requiring treatment was not more common in the dexmedetomidine group than in the control group.[4],[5]

Studies have used dexmedetomidine in the range of 0.5–2 μg/kg to effectively control the hemodynamic responses during laryngoscopy and intubation and have concluded that optimal dose is 1 μg/kg.[4],[9],[10],[11] The most commonly observed side effects of dexmedetomidine are hypotension and bradycardia that occur more frequently during the loading period. Previous studies have suggested that reducing loading dose and slowing infusion rate may prevent cardiovascular side effects.[10],[12] We, therefore, used dexmedetomidine as a slow infusion at 1 μg/kg over 10 min and observed a consistent and reliable protection on HR and blood pressure with no severe side effects and the findings are very much similar to the observations of previous studies.

Esmolol is effective, in a dose-dependent manner, in the attenuation of the sympathomimetic response to laryngoscopy and intubation. There are different doses of esmolol studied in previous studies and the choice of an optimal dose of esmolol is very important to balance between the desired and side effects.[13]

Studies have used esmolol as bolus and infusion in the dose ranging from 0.4 to 2 mg/kg and in combination with other drugs.[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18] The results are variable and no consensus has been reached regarding the optimum dose and timing of its delivery. However, one of the studies comparing bolus versus infusion of esmolol has concluded that infusion was found more effective than bolus on controlling SAP during both intubation and sternotomy.[18] Several studies support using esmolol 2 mg/kg to effectively suppress the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation, without any incidence of hypotension or bradycardia.[13] A study, in whom chronic β blocker therapy, was continued until the time of surgery, has concluded that esmolol did not further attenuate the HR response but did attenuate the increase in blood pressure.[18] We, therefore, used esmolol infusion in the dosage of 2 mg/kg and the results are similar to previous studies.

A study has concluded that esmolol was more effective than dexmedetomidine in the prevention of the increases in systolic, diastolic, and MAPs following endotracheal intubation. On the other hand, dexmedetomidine was more effective than esmolol in preventing the increase in HR.[12] It is of prime importance to attenuate the rise in both blood pressure and HR to prevent perioperative myocardial ischemia. We, therefore, considered that it will be appropriate to combine both dexmedetomidine and esmolol to attenuate the increase in systemic blood pressure as well as HR. It was observed that the combination of both drugs significantly decreased the HR when compared individually with dexmedetomidine and esmolol. Although all the groups suppressed blood pressure, the changes in SBP, DBP, and MAP were comparable in all the groups except at 5 min. At 5 min in esmolol group, the DBP and MAP were significantly less, inferring better control of arterial pressures by esmolol. When pulmonary artery pressures were compared, there was a significant decrease in SPAP, DPAP, and MPAP in DE group except at 3 min. This shows that the pulmonary arterial pressures were well maintained in DE group than D or E group.

The limitation of this study was the lack of a placebo group since our patients were known for coronary artery disease and it would be detrimental to produce stress in the placebo group. The plasma catecholamines levels would not be helpful to know the degree of suppression of neurohumoral pathway since etomidate was used as it is known to suppress adrenocortical axis.

We conclude that pretreatment with the combination of dexmedetomidine and esmolol infusion before induction is more effective in controlling the HR and pulmonary artery pressure. However, the combination has no additional advantage with respect to arterial blood pressure when compared to esmolol and dexmedetomidine individually in patients undergoing CABG without any untoward side effects in spite of patients being on beta blockers preoperatively.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Hamaya Y, Dohi S. Differences in cardiovascular response to airway stimulation at different sites and blockade of the responses by lidocaine. Anesthesiology 2000;93:95-103.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Gogus N, Akan B, Serger N, Baydar M. The comparison of the effects of dexmedetomidine, fentanyl and esmolol on prevention of hemodynamic response to intubation. Rev Bras Anestesiol 2014;64:314-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Bansal S, Pawar M. Haemodynamic responses to laryngoscopy and intubation in patients with pregnancy-induced hypertension: Effect of intravenous esmolol with or without lidocaine. Int J Obstet Anesth 2002;11:4-8.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Sulaiman S, Karthekeyan RB, Vakamudi M, Sundar AS, Ravullapalli H, Gandham R, et al. The effects of dexmedetomidine on attenuation of stress response to endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing elective off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Card Anaesth 2012;15:39-43.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
5.
Menda F, Köner O, Sayin M, Türe H, Imer P, Aykaç B, et al. Dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to anesthetic induction to attenuate hemodynamic response to endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing fast-track CABG. Ann Card Anaesth 2010;13:16-21.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
6.
Hussain AM, Sultan ST. Efficacy of fentanyl and esmolol in the prevention of haemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2005;15:454-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Keniya VM, Ladi S, Naphade R. Dexmedetomidine attenuates sympathoadrenal response to tracheal intubation and reduces perioperative anaesthetic requirement. Indian J Anaesth 2011;55:352-7.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
8.
Bajwa SJ, Kaur J, Singh A, Parmar S, Singh G, Kulshrestha A, et al. Attenuation of pressor response and dose sparing of opioids and anaesthetics with pre-operative dexmedetomidine. Indian J Anaesth 2012;56:123-8.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
9.
Laha A, Ghosh S, Sarkar S. Attenuation of sympathoadrenal responses and anesthetic requirement by dexmedetomidine. Anesth Essays Res 2013;7:65-70.  Back to cited text no. 9
  [Full text]  
10.
Sagiroglu AE, Celik M, Orhon Z, Yuzer S, Sen B. Different doses of dexmedetomidine on controlling hemodynamic responses to tracheal intubation. Int J Anaesth 2010;27:2.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Gulabani M, Gurha P, Dass P, Kulshreshtha N. Comparative analysis of efficacy of lignocaine 1.5 mg/kg and two different doses of dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg/kg and 1 μg/kg) in attenuating the hemodynamic pressure response to laryngoscopy and intubation. Anesth Essays Res 2015;9:5-14.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Srivastava VK, Agrawal S, Gautam SK, Ahmed M, Sharma S, Kumar R, et al. Comparative evaluation of esmolol and dexmedetomidine for attenuation of sympathomimetic response to laryngoscopy and intubation in neurosurgical patients. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2015;31:186-90.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
13.
Singh S, Laing EF, Owiredu WK, Singh A. Comparison of esmolol and lidocaine for attenuation of cardiovascular stress response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation in a Ghanaian population. Anesth Essays Res 2013;7:83-8.  Back to cited text no. 13
  [Full text]  
14.
Venn RM, Grounds RM. Comparison between dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation in the Intensive Care Unit: Patient and clinician perceptions. Br J Anaesth 2001;87:684-90.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Shrestha GS, Marhatta MN, Amatya R. Use of gabapentin, esmolol or their combination to attenuate haemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ) 2011;9:238-43.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Bensky KP, Donahue-Spencer L, Hertz GE, Anderson MT, James R. The dose-related effects of bolus esmolol on heart rate and blood pressure following laryngoscopy and intubation. AANA J 2000;68:437-42.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Reddy SV, Balaji D, Ahmed SN. Dexmedetomidine vs. esmolol to attenuate the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation: A randomized double-blind clinical study. Int J Appl Basic Med Res 2014;4:95-100.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Efe EM, Bilgin BA, Alanoglu Z, Akbaba M, Denker C. Comparison of bolus and continuous infusion of esmolol on hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy, endotracheal intubation and sternotomy in coronary artery bypass graft. Braz J Anesthesiol 2014;64:247-52.  Back to cited text no. 18
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Shio Priye
Department of Anaesthesiology, Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences, Whitefield, Bengaluru - 560 066, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aca.ACA_112_18

Rights and Permissions



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top