Administration of Esmolol in Microlaryngeal Surgery for Blunting the Hemodynamic Response during Laryngoscopy and Tracheal Intubation in Cigarette Smokers

Superior Laryngeal Nerve Block for Microlaryngoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of superior laryngeal nerve block (SLNB) for microlaryngoscopic surgery (MLS).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, Cochrane Library, CNKI database, VIP database, Wanfang database, and trial registry databases.

METHODS

PICOS principles were performed: adults undergoing MLS receiving SLNB compared with no-SLNB in randomized controlled trials were included. Primary outcome included the incidence of severe postoperative sore throat (POST). Secondary outcomes included perioperative mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR), incidence of severe postoperative cough, and anesthesia recovery time.

RESULTS

Eleven articles with 728 patients were included. Results indicated that SLNB provides lower incidence of severe POST in post-extubation 30 min (relative ratio [RR] = 0.13; 95% confidence intervals [CIs]: 0.05 ~ 0.34), 2 h (RR = 0.09; 95% CI: 0.02 ~ 0.36), 4-6 h (RR = 0.11; 95% CI: 0.03 ~ 0.41), and 24 h (RR = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.03 ~ 0.83); lower MAP (tracheal intubation: standardized mean difference [SMD] = -1.59; 95% CI: -1.69 to -0.42); suspension laryngoscope insertion: (SMD = -0.98; 95% CI: -1.49 to -0.46); tracheal extubation: (SMD = -0.78; 95% CI:-1.24 to -0.31); post-extubation 5 min: (SMD = -0.95; 95% CI: -1.41 to -0.49); lower HR (tracheal intubation: mean difference [MD] = -9.71; 95% CI: -17.16 to -2.27); suspension laryngoscope insertion: (MD = -8.64; 95% CI: -16.79 to -0.49); tracheal extubation: (MD = -10.13; 95% CI: -17.86 to -2.39); post-extubation 5 min: (MD = -13.44; 95% CI: -22.53 to -4.35); lower incidence of severe postoperative cough in post-extubation 30 min (RR = 0.18; 95% CI: 0.06 ~ 0.57) and 2 h (RR = 0.13; 95% CI: 0.02 ~ 0.69); and shorter anesthesia recovery time (MD = -5.34; 95% CI: -8.81 to -1.86) compared to controls.

CONCLUSIONS

SLNB could provide lower incidence of severe POST, more stable perioperative MAP and HR, lower incidence of severe postoperative cough, and shorter anesthesia recovery time for MLS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I Laryngoscope, 134:3437-3446, 2024.

Real-Time Monitoring of Blood Pressure Using Digitalized Pulse Arrival Time Calculation Technology for Prompt Detection of Sudden Hypertensive Episodes During Laryngeal Microsurgery: Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Laryngeal microsurgery (LMS) is often accompanied by a sudden increase in blood pressure (BP) during surgery because of stimulation around the larynx. This sudden change in the hemodynamic status is not immediately reflected in a casual cuff-type measurement that takes intermittent readings every 3 to 5 min.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the potential of pulse arrival time (PAT) as a marker for a BP surge, which usually occurs in patients undergoing LMS.

METHODS

Intermittent measurements of BP and electrocardiogram (ECG) and photoplethysmogram (PPG) signals were recorded during LMS. PAT was defined as the interval between the R-peak on the ECG and the maximum slope on the PPG. Mean PAT values before and after BP increase were compared. PPG-related parameters and the correlations between changes in these variables were calculated.

RESULTS

BP surged because of laryngoscopic manipulation (mean systolic BP [SBP] from 115.3, SD 21.4 mmHg, to 159.9, SD 25.2 mmHg; P<.001), whereas PAT decreased significantly (from mean 460.6, SD 51.9 ms, to 405.8, SD 50.1 ms; P<.001) in most of the cases. The change in SBP showed a significant correlation with the inverse of the PAT (r=0.582; P<.001). Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis indicated that an increase of 11.5% in the inverse of the PAT could detect a 40% increase in SBP, and the area under the curve was 0.814.

CONCLUSIONS

During LMS, where invasive arterial catheterization is not always possible, PAT shows good correlation with SBP and may, therefore, have the potential to identify abrupt BP surges during laryngoscopic manipulations in a noninvasive manner.

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.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous esmolol for cardiac protection in non-cardiac surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Haemodynamic instability predisposes patients to cardiac complications in non-cardiac surgery. Esmolol, a short-acting cardioselective beta-adrenergic blocker might be efficient in perioperative cardiac protection, but could affect other vital organs, such as the kidneys, and post-discharge survival. We performed a systematic review on the use of esmolol for perioperative cardiac protection. We searched PubMed, Ovid Medline and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled trials. Eligible randomized controlled studies (RCTs) reported a perioperative esmolol intervention with at least one of the primary (major cardiac or renal complications during the first 30 postoperative days) or secondary (postoperative adverse effects and all-cause mortality) outcomes. We included 196 adult patients from three RCTs. Esmolol significantly reduced postoperative myocardial ischaemia, RR =0.43 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.21-0.88], p = .02. No association with clinically significant bradycardia and hypotension compared to patients receiving control treatment could be confirmed (RR =7.4 [95% CI: 0.29-139.81], p = .18 and RR =2.21 [95% CI: 0.34-14.36], p = .41, respectively). No differences regarding other outcomes were observed. No study reported postoperative renal outcomes. Esmolol seems promising for the prevention of perioperative myocardial ischaemia. However, the association with bradycardia and hypotension remains unclear. Randomized trials investigating the effect of β1-selective blockade on clinically relevant outcomes and non-cardiac vital organs are warranted. Key messages Short-acting cardioselective esmolol seems efficient in the prevention of perioperative myocardial ischaemia. The possibly increased risk of bradycardia and hypotension with short-acting intravenous beta blockade could not be confirmed or refuted by available data. Future adequately powered trials investigating the effect of β1-selective blockade on clinically relevant outcomes and non-cardiac vital organs are warranted.

Dexmedetomidine versus esmolol to attenuate the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation: A randomized double-blind clinical study

Context:

Sympathoadrenal response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation manifests as transient, but distinct tachycardia and hypertension.

Aims:

The objective of this study is to compare the clinical effects of dexmedetomidine with esmolol and control in attenuating the presser response during laryngoscopy.

Settings and Design:

A randomized, prospective, double-blind, controlled study.

Subjects and Methods:

We studied consented, 90 adult, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II patients of either sex, scheduled for non-cardiac surgery requiring intubation. The patients were randomly divided into three groups (n = 30). Group C received placebo, Group E received 2.0 mg/kg of esmolol and Group D received 1.0 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine, intravenously over 10 min and 3 min before induction of general anesthesia. All patients were uniformly pre-medicated, induced and intubated using thiopentone and succinylcholine as per standard protocol. Heart rate (HR), systemic arterial pressures were recorded at baseline, after study drug infusion, after induction, immediately and 3, 5, 7, 10 min after intubation.

Statistical Analysis:

Analysis of variance and t-test as appropriate.

Results:

The mean arterial pressure was significantly increased in patients receiving placebo (P < 0.0001) and esmolol (P < 0.0001) after laryngoscopy and intubation compared with baseline value and Group D (P = 0.6294). The rise in HR (P = 0.08481) and rate pressure product (P = 0.0666) at the time of intubation were minimal and was statistically significant up to 15 min in Group D.

Conclusions:

Both the drugs attenuated the pressure response. Of the two drugs administered, dexmedetomidine 1.0 μg/kg provides a consistent, reliable and effective attenuation of pressure responses when compared to esmolol 2.0 mg/kg.

Esmolol reduces perioperative ischemia in noncardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

OBJECTIVE

Literature increasingly has suggested how beta-blockers could be associated with reductions of mortality and morbidity in noncardiac surgery. Recently, the POISE trial showed that beta-blockers could be harmful in the perioperative period. The authors performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical effects of esmolol in noncardiac surgery.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

SETTING

Hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1765 patients from 32 randomized trials.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Three investigators independently searched BioMedCentral and PubMed. Inclusion criteria were random allocation to treatment and comparison of esmolol versus placebo, other drugs, or standard of care in noncardiac surgery. Exclusion criteria were duplicate publications, nonhuman experimental studies, and no data on clinical outcomes. The use of esmolol was associated with a significant reduction of myocardial ischemia episodes (5/283 [1.76%] in the esmolol group v 16/265 [6.03%] in the control arm, odds ratio [OR] = 0.16 [0.05-0.54], p = 0.003). The authors did not observe significant differences regarding episodes of arrhythmias (8/236 [3.38%] v 22/309 [7.11%], OR = 0.52 [0.23-1.18], p = 0.12) and in the incidence of myocardial infarction (0/148 [0%] v 1/169 [0.59%], OR = 0.23 [0.01-6.09], p = 0.38). Esmolol-treated patients did not experience more episodes of hypotension (17/384 [4.42%] v 38/439 [8.65%], OR = 0.41 [0.22-0.79], p = 0.17) and bradycardia (25/342 [7.30%] v 17/406 [4.18%], OR = 1.42 [0.74-2.74], p = 0.42).

CONCLUSIONS

Esmolol seemed to reduce the incidence of myocardial ischemia in noncardiac surgery without increasing the episodes of hypotension and bradycardia. Large randomized trials are necessary to confirm these promising results.