The effect of an intermediate dose of labetalol on heart rate and blood pressure responses to laryngoscopy and intubation

Effectiveness of lidocaine/prilocaine cream on cardiovascular reactions from endotracheal intubation and cough events during recovery period of older patients under general anesthesia: prospective, randomized placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Endotracheal intubation is known to pose significant physiological, pharmacokinetic, and dynamic changes and postoperative respiratory complications in patients under general anesthesia.

METHOD

An RCT trial was organized by the Third Affiliated Hospital at Sun Yat-sen University, China. Patients were eligible for inclusion in the trial if they were over 60 years old and had upper-abdominal surgery during the induction of anesthesia and had enrolled in endotracheal intubations. The primary end point included cardiovascular reactions during the induction of anesthesia and endotracheal intubations and cough events during the recovery period. In the test group, 2 g of lidocaine/prilocaine cream (and in the control group, 2 g of Vaseline) were laid over the surface of the tracheal tube cuff.

RESULTS

The systolic blood pressure (F value = 62.271, p < 0.001), diastolic blood pressure (F value = 150.875, p < 0.001), and heart rate (F value = 75.627, p < 0.001) of the test group were significantly lower than the control group. Cough events during the recovery period in the test group were better (spontaneous cough, χ² value = 10.591, p < 0.001; induced cough, χ² value =10.806, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In older patients, coughing and cardiovascular reactions under anesthesia and endotracheal intubations were reduced, as a result of using lidocaine/prilocaine cream on the surface of the tracheal tube cuff.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Clinical Trials Network NCT02017392, 2013-12-16.

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.

Attenuation of Hemodynamic Response to Tracheal Extubation: A Comparative Study between Esmolol and Labetalol

Background and Aims

Cardiovascular stress response to extubation can result in elevated heart rate (HR) and mean arterial blood pressures which can be detrimental in high-risk patients.

Settings and Design

The objective of this study is to compare the esmolol and labetalol efficacy in attenuating hemodynamic response to tracheal extubation.

Materials and Methods

Sixty patients scheduled for elective surgical procedures were selected randomly and divided into two groups of thirty each. Group I - esmolol 1.5 mg/kg and Group II - labetalol 0.25 mg/kg were administered 2 min before extubation after following a standard perioperative anesthetic management. Hemodynamic parameters recorded include HR, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP) at baseline, reversal, study drug, 1 min after study drug, extubation, and at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 15 min postextubation.

Statistical Analysis

Student's t-test and analysis of variance have been used to find the significance of study parameters between groups of patients. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Both esmolol and labetalol obtunded extubation response throughout the extubation and postextubation period. At extubation and immediately postextubation at 1^st and 2^nd min, there was statistical significance (P < 0.05) in SBP, DBP, and MAP which showed esmolol was better than labetalol. Whereas labetalol was more efficient in controlling HR at 5^th and 15^th min postextubation having statistical significance.

Conclusions

Both esmolol and labetalol attenuated hemodynamic response. Esmolol was more efficient than labetalol at extubation and immediately postextubation. If patient has tachycardia at extubation, labetalol is preferred. If patient has raised blood pressure, then esmolol is a good option in blunting the response.

A Comparative Study of Intravenous Esmolol, Labetalol and Lignocaine in Low Doses for Attenuation of Sympathomimetic Responses to Laryngoscopy and Endotracheal Intubation

BACKGROUND

Direct layngoscopy and endotracheal intubation is a noxious stimuli and induces sympathomimetic responses. Although well tolerated in healthy subjects, it may impose life threatening arrhythmias, left ventricular failure or rupture of cerebral aneurysm in susceptible patients. Esmolol, Labetalol and Lignocaine attenuate these responses but are associated with side effects of bradycardia, hypotension etc. In lower doses, chances of these side effects are comparatively low. So we designed this prospective clinical trial to assess the efficacy of intravenous esmolol, labetalol and lignocaine in low doses for attenuation of sympathomimetic responses to endotracheal intubation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-five consenting patients of ASA physical status I or II of age range 20 to 60 years, scheduled for different general surgical procedures were randomly assigned to one of the three groups; group ES, group LB and group LG. Participants of group ES, group LB and group LG was given esmolol HCL 0.5 mg/Kg, labetalol HCL 0.25 mg/kg and lignocaine HCL 1 mg/Kg body weight respectively. Outcome variables were HR, SBP, DBP, MAP and RPP. These variables were recorded just after intubation and thereafter at 1,3,5, 7 and 10 minutes of intubation.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference regarding the demographic characteristics of the groups. Heart rate and systolic blood pressure was lower throughout the study period in labetalol group. But the values of study parameters were always higher than the baseline in esmolol and lignocaine group. Values of mean arterial pressure was slightly higher in labetalol group but it was much higher in two other groups throughout the study period. Diastolic blood pressure was higher in all the groups. Values of rate pressure product was higher during intubation and at 1minute after intubation in labetalol group but thereafter it was always lower than baseline values.

CONCLUSION

Labetalol 0.25 mg Kg-1 is an effective and safe drug to be used for attenuation of sympathomimetic responses to endotracheal intubation. Esmolol 0.5 mg Kg-1 and lignocaine 1 mg Kg-1 are also effective to some extent and are safe.

Effects of stellate ganglion block on cardiovascular reaction and heart rate variability in elderly patients during anesthesia induction and endotracheal intubation

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of stellate ganglion block (SGB) on cardiovascular response and heart rate (HR) variability in elderly patients during anesthesia induction and endotracheal intubation.

DESIGN

A randomized, double-blinded, and placebo-controlled study.

SETTING

University-affiliated teaching hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Eighty elderly patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grades I and II) receiving elective surgery during general anesthesia.

INTERVENTIONS

Right stellate ganglion injection (SGB) was performed in all patients using 10 mL of 1% lidocaine or normal saline.

MEASUREMENTS

Systolic blood pressure (BP), diastolic BP, HR, and calculated rate pressure product. HR variability at the following time points: conscious status before induction (T0); immediately before intubation (T1); immediately after intubation (T2); and 1, 3, and 5 minutes postintubation (T3, T4, and T5).

MAIN RESULTS

No significant differences in BP and HR were observed between the 2 groups. Rate pressure product values significantly increased in the control group compared with baseline and SGB group values. Low-frequency power (LF) and LF/high-frequency power (HF) significantly increased, and HF and normalized units of HF significantly decreased in the control group compared with baseline values. LF, normalized units of LF, and LF/HF in the SGB group significantly decreased compared with those of the control group.

CONCLUSION

SGB protects the myocardium and effectively suppresses stress responses during anesthesia induction and tracheal intubation in elderly patients.

Comparative prophylactic and therapeutic effects of intravenous labetalol 0.4 mg/kg and nicardipine 20 μg/kg on hypertensive responses to endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing elective surgeries with general anesthesia: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation (LTI) after induction of general anesthesia often cause hypertension and tachycardia. Labetalol and nicardipine have been used to prevent and treat acute cardiovascular responses to LTI.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to compare the preventive and therapeutic effects of labetalol 0.4 mg/kg IV and nicardipine 20 μg/kg IV on hypertensive responses to LTI during induction of general anesthesia.

METHODS

Patients undergoing general anesthesia were randomly allocated to 4 groups. In part I (prevention), 80 patients were randomized to receive either 0.4 mg/kg of labetalol (n = 40) or 20 μg/kg of nicardipine (n = 40) 4 minutes before LTI. In part II (treatment), patients were randomized to receive 0.4 mg/kg of labetalol (n = 40) or 20 μg/kg of nicardipine (n = 40) after LTI if hypertension occurred. The number of additional study drug doses required by patients with hypertension (parts I and II) and time to return to normotension (part II) were recorded. Mean arterial pressure and heart rate were monitored, and rate-pressure product was calculated. Adverse events were also monitored.

RESULTS

A total of 130 patients (72 patients in part I and 58 patients in part II) were included in the analysis. In parts I and II, the number of patients who required additional doses of the study drug because of persistent hypertension was lower in the nicardipine groups than in the labetalol groups (P < 0.05). Mean arterial pressure was lower and heart rate was significantly higher over time in the nicardipine groups compared with the labetalol groups (P < 0.05) in parts I and II. In part II, time to return to normotension was shorter in the nicardipine treatment group than in the labetalol treatment group (61 [21] vs 130 [46] seconds; P = 0.01). No statistical differences were observed in the incidence of adverse events except for tachycardia in part I (2 cases in the labetalol prevention group vs 18 cases in the nicardipine prevention group; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received nicardipine were less likely to require additional doses for either the prevention or treatment of hypertensive responses to LTI and responded to the study drug more rapidly than patients who received labetalol for the treatment of hypertensive responses to LTI. However, labetalol was associated with a lower incidence of tachycardia and less of an increase in rate-pressure product when used for the prevention of hypertension during LTI.

Vascular surgery patients prescribed preoperative β-blockers experienced a decrease in the maximal heart rate observed during induction of general anesthesia

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association of preoperative β-blocker usage and maximal heart rates observed during the induction of general anesthesia.

DESIGN

Retrospective descriptive, univariate, and multivariate analyses of electronic hospital and anesthesia medical records.

SETTING

A tertiary-care medical center within the Veterans Health Administration.

PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive adult elective and emergent patients presenting for vascular surgery during calendar years 2005 to 2011.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of the 430 eligible cases, 218 were prescribed β-blockers, and 212 were not taking β-blockers. The two groups were comparable across baseline patient factors (ie, demographic, morphometric, surgical duration, and surgical procedures) and induction medication doses. The β-blocker group experienced a lower maximal heart rate during the induction of general anesthesia compared with the non-β-blocker group (105 ± 41 beats/min v 115 ± 45 beats/min, respectively; p < 0.01). Adjusted linear regression found a statistically significant association between lower maximal heart rate and the use of β-blockers (β = -11.1 beats/min, p < 0.01). There was no difference between groups in total intraoperative β-blocker administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative β-blockade of vascular surgery patients undergoing general anesthesia is associated with a lower maximal heart rate during anesthetic induction. There may be potential benefits in administering β-blockers to reduce physiologic stress in this surgical population at risk for perioperative cardiac morbidity. Future research should further explore intraoperative hemodynamic effects in light of existing practice guidelines for optimal medication selection, dosage, and heart rate control.

Comparison of esmolol and labetalol, in low doses, for attenuation of sympathomimetic response to laryngoscopy and intubation

Objective:

The present study compared the efficacy of esmolol and labetalol, in low doses, for attenuation of sympathomimetic response to laryngoscopy and intubation.

Design:

Prospective, randomized, placebo controlled, double-blinded study.

Setting:

Operation room.

Patients and Methods:

75 ASA physical status I and II adult patients, aged 18-45 years undergoing elective surgical procedures, requiring general anesthesia and orotracheal intubation.

Interventions:

Patients were allocated to any of the three groups (25 each)-Group C (control)10 ml 0.9% saline i.v. Group E (esmolol) 0.5 mg/kg diluted with 0.9% saline to 10 ml i.v. Group L (labetalol) 0.25 mg/kg diluted with 0.9% saline to 10 ml i.v. In the control group 10 ml of 0.9% saline was given both at 2 and 5 min prior to intubation. In the esmolol group 0.5 mg/kg of esmolol (diluted with 0.9% saline to 10 ml) was given 2 min prior and 10 ml of 0.9% saline 5 min prior to intubation. In the labetalol group 10 ml of 0.9% saline was administered 2 min prior and 0.25 mg/kg of labetalol (diluted with 0.9% saline to 10 ml) 5 min prior to intubation. All the patients were subjected to the same standard anesthetic technique.

Measurements:

Heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were recorded prior to induction, at time of intubation and 1, 3, 5, and 10 min after intubation. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and rate pressure product (RPP) were calculated. Abnormal ECG changes were also recorded.

Results:

Compared to placebo and esmolol (0.5 mg/kg), labetalol (0.25 mg/kg) significantly attenuated the rise in heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and RPP during laryngoscopy and intubation. However, the difference was not statistically significant among the values for DBP and MAP.

Conclusion:

In lower doses, labetalol (0.25 mg/kg) is a better agent than esmolol (0.5 mg/kg) in attenuating the sympathomimetic response to laryngoscopy and intubation.

Rapid sequence intubation in adults with elevated intracranial pressure: a survey of emergency medicine residency programs

A questionnaire entitled "Survey of Protocols for Rapid Sequence Intubation in Previously Healthy Adults with Elevated Intracranial Pressure" was distributed to the program directors of all 100 emergency medicine residency programs listed in the Directory of Graduate Medical Education Programs in February 1995. The medical literature on rapid sequence intubation in patients with suspected intracranial pressure elevations was reviewed. The findings of the review were compared with the survey responses. Sixty-seven program directors responded to the survey. Sixty-five programs performed rapid sequence intubation in their institution. Five programs performed 0 to 10 procedures annually. Six performed 10 to 30 annually, 19 performed 30 to 50, 17 performed 50 to 100, and 18 performed more than 100. Succinylcholine and vecuronium were the most frequently used neuromuscular blockers. Midazolam and thiopental were the most frequently used sedative induction agents. Most programs use a defasciculating agent prior to succinylcholine administration. The majority of programs do not use a priming agent before the use of a nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking agent. Intravenous lidocaine was routinely administered prior to neuromuscular blockade. Fentanyl was the most frequently used other pretreatment medication. Rapid sequence intubation is used to facilitate definitive, emergent airway management in patients with suspected intracranial pressure elevations in almost all of the emergency medicine residency programs that responded to the survey. Most of these programs follow the guidelines recommended in the medical literature. The majority of these guidelines, however, are based on statistical data performed in the laboratory or nonemergency environments. Further clinical studies in an emergency medicine environment must be performed to determine the optimal drug regimen for rapid sequence intubation in patients with elevated intracranial pressure.

Controlling the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation

The hemodynamic response to the stress of laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation does not present a problem for most patients. However, patients with cardiovascular or cerebral disease may be at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from the tachycardia and hypertension resulting from this stress. These hemodynamic effects gained notice after the introduction and use of muscle relaxants, such as curare and succinylcholine, for endotracheal intubation at the time of anesthesia induction. A variety of anesthetic techniques and drugs are available to control the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation. The method or drug of choice depends on many factors, including the urgency and length of surgery, choice of anesthetic technique, route of administration, medical condition of the patient, and individual preference. The possible solutions number as many as the medications and techniques available and depend on the individual patient and anesthesia care provider. This paper reviews these medications and techniques to guide the clinician in choosing the best methods.

A comparison of fentanyl, esmolol, and their combination for blunting the haemodynamic responses during rapid-sequence induction

The purpose of this randomized, double-blind study was to compare the ability of a combination of fentanyl and esmolol to blunt the haemodynamic effects of intubation with that of either agent alone. Patients received fentanyl or saline four minutes before, and esmolol or saline two minutes before rapid-sequence induction of anaesthesia. The F2 group (n = 24) received fentanyl 2 micrograms.kg-1, the E2 group (n = 24) received esmolol 2 mg.kg-1, the F2/E2 group (n = 25) received a combination of fentanyl 2 micrograms.kg-1 and esmolol 2 mg.kg-1, and the F5 group (n = 26) received fentanyl 5 micrograms.kg-1. Following tracheal intubation, the maximum percent change from baseline heart rate was less in the F2/E2 and F5 groups (12% and 16% respectively) than in the E2 group (34%)(P < 0.05). The maximum percent changes from baseline systolic blood pressure in the F2/E2 and F5 groups (15% and 6% respectively) were less than in the F2 and E2 groups (24% and 33% respectively) (P < 0.05). The combination of a low dose of fentanyl and esmolol provides an alternative to a higher dose of fentanyl for blunting the haemodynamic responses to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation during rapid-sequence induction in healthy patients.