Esmolol: effects on isoprenaline- and exercise-induced cardiovascular stimulation in conscious dogs

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.

Comparison of the potassium channel blocker tedisamil with the beta-adrenoceptor blocker esmolol and the calcium antagonist gallopamil in patients with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Tedisamil is a new bradycardic agent proven to exert anti-ischemic and antiarrhythmic effects by blockade of the different cardiac and vascular K+ currents.

HYPOTHESIS

It was the aim of the present study to compare the favorable anti-ischemic effects of tedisamil, with two long established representatives in the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD), namely, the beta1 blocker esmolol and the Ca2 antagonist gallopamil.

METHODS

The hemodynamic and neurohumoral effects of the new potassium channel blocker tedisamil, an agent with negative chronotropic and class III antiarrhythmic properties, were compared with the ultra-short-acting beta1-selective adrenoceptor blocker esmolol and the calcium antagonist gallopamil. A total of 22 patients with angiographically proven CAD and reproducible ST-segment depression in the exercise electrocardiogram was included in two studies with an almost identical design and inclusion criteria. The investigation was carried out using right heart catheterization and bicycle ergometry. A subgroup of 8 patients receiving 0.3 mg/kg body weight tedisamil intravenously (i.v.) in an open dose-finding study was compared with a group of 14 patients who had received esmolol (i.v. bolus of 500 micrograms/kg, maintenance dose 200 micrograms/kg/min) and gallopamil (initial dose 0.025 mg/kg, maintenance dose 0.0005 mg/kg/h) in a second intraindividual comparison.

RESULTS

Tedisamil and esmolol reduced heart rate at rest by 13% (p < 0.001), and 6% (p < 0.05), and at maximum working levels by 8% (p < 0.01) and 9% (p < 0.05), respectively. Gallopamil increased heart rate at rest by 7% (p < 0.05), with only slight changes occurring during exercise. Corresponding findings for each drug were observed for cardiac output both at rest and during exercise [tedisamil: at rest -10% (NS), max. exercise -8%; esmolol: at rest -14% (NS), max. exercise -18% (NS); gallopamil: no significant changes]. Compared with tedisamil, stroke volume was reduced by esmolol [at rest and max. workload: -9% (NS)] and gallopamil [rest: -6% (NS), max. exercise: -2% (NS)]. Of the indirect parameters of ventricular function, that is, mean capillary wedge pressure (PCWPm) and right ventricular ejection fraction, only PCWPm demonstrated significant differences between tedisamil and gallopamil (+18% and -6% at rest, +17% and -21% during exercise, respectively; p < 0.001). Compared with gallopamil, both tedisamil and esmolol were superior in their effects on rate-pressure product, myocardial oxygen consumption, and ST-segment depression, whereas plasma lactate concentration was more reduced by tedisamil and gallopamil. Tedisamil led to a fall in norepinephrine levels in particular.

CONCLUSION

Tedisamil and esmolol showed almost equipotent anti-ischemic effects at the doses administered. Tedisamil acts mainly by reductions in heart rate, and esmolol, though to a lesser degree, also by reductions in systolic blood pressure. The mechanism of gallopamil is to reduce afterload and to improve coronary perfusion. At the doses applied, however, it has lower antianginal potency compared with tedisamil and esmolol.