Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 86504

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : June | Volume : 16 | Issue : 6 | Page : UC56 - UC61 Full Version

Intravenous Dexmedetomidine versus Intravenous Esmolol in Blunting the Laryngoscopy Response in Adult Normotensives Undergoing Elective Surgeries: A Randomised Clinical Trial


Published: June 1, 2022 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/49987.16502
Johns Rachel Jemmie, MV Vidya, Segaran Sivakumar, P Nagalakshmi, RV Ranjan, George Koshy Sagiev

1. Assistant professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Mount Zion Medical College, Chayalode, Adoor, Kerala, India. 2. Assistant professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Podicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Puducherry, India. 3. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Podicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Puducherry, India. 4. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Podicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Puducherry, India. 5. Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Podicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Puducherry, India. 6. Professor and Head, Department of Anaesthesiology, Podicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Puducherry, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. MV Vidya,
D-II, Flat no-4 JIPMER Faculty Quarters, Dhan Vantrinagar, Puducherry-605006, India.
E-mail: drmvvidya@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: A wide array of drugs are available for blunting the laryngoscopy response. Amongst them both dexmedetomidine, and esmolol belong to the non-opioid group having least interference with the recovery process without causing significant respiratory depression, thus are suitable intervention for this purpose. Dexmedetomidine a sedative highly selective α2 adrenoceptor agonist and has an anaesthetic-sparing effect at induction. It suppresses the release of catecholamine in response to a noxious stimulant because of its central sympatholytic action. Esmolol with a different pharmacokinetic profile is a water soluble, cardio-selective, an ultrashort acting beta blocker has a short t1/2 thus suited for suppressing the transient pressor reflexes following acute noxious surgical or anesthesia stimuli.

Aim: To compare the degree of attenuation of the laryngoscopy response following the use of single preinduction dose (Intravenous infusion at a dose of 1 μg/kg) of dexmedetomidine with that of esmolol (intravenous bolus at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg) in adult normotensives undergoing elective intubations.

Materials and Methods: The randomised clinical trial was conducted in Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences from September 2016 to March 2018, on 60 patients of either sex, aged between 20-60 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II requiring elective intubations for general surgical procedures. The patients were randomly divided into two groups (n=30 each). Prior to induction group A received 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine IV infusion over 10 min, and group B received 100 mL IV infusion of normal saline over 10 min. Also 2 minute before laryngoscopy group A received 10 mL of normal saline (IV) bolus, whereas, group B received esmolol 0.5 mg/kg IV diluted in 10 mL of normal saline as a bolus. Heart Rate (HR), Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP), Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) and Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) were recorded at baseline i.e, pre-procedure before the study drug infusion, preinduction, at laryngoscopy (0min) and 1,3,5 min after intubation. A rise of MAP and/or HR more than 20% from the baseline was considered as positive laryngoscopy response. Student’s unpaired t-test was used for analysis of inter group variables. Intra group variables were analysed using repeated measures Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA).

Results: Mean age of patients in group A was 38.77±13.082 years and group B was 37.20±13.069 years (p-value=0.644). Results revealed that both the groups had an increase in HR and MAP at 1 minute after laryngoscopy and intubation. Mean readings of MAP showed a maximum rise of group A (2.15%) vs group B (7.25%) from the baseline readings at 1min following laryngoscopy which showed no statistical significance. The maximum HR increase following laryngoscopy was at 1 minute in group A (8.28%) vs group B (13.59%), which were below the positive laryngoscopy response. The mean HR, SBP, DBP and MAP recorded at preinduction, at laryngoscopy, 1, 3 and 5 mins following intubation showed no statistical difference (p-value >0.05) between the two groups.

Conclusion: Usage of single dose preinduction dexmedetomidine iv infusion 1 μg/kg over 10 min was found to be equally effective in blunting the pressor response to laryngoscopy and intubation when compared to bolus dose of iv esmolol 0.5 mg/kg given 2 min prior to laryngoscopy.

Keywords

Anaesthesia, Dexmedetomidine, Esmolol, Haemodynamic response, Intubation, Laryngoscopy

The pressor response to laryngoscopy is a recognized phenomenon in anaesthesia. Laryngoscopy and intubation causes an intense reflex which produces a significant rise in heart rate, blood pressure, due to an increase in sympathoadrenergic pressor response. The response begins within 5 sec of laryngoscopy, peaks at 1-2min and returns to normal levels in 5 min (1).

Variety of agents targeting either peripheral or central components of pressor response have been used to blunt intubation response which includes short acting opioids, calcium channel blockers, topical lignocaine spray, cardioselective beta-blockers, magnesium sulphate, α2 adrenergic agonist, vasodilators with varying degree of success. But the search for an ideal agent still continues (2),(3).

Dexmedetomidine primarily a sedative is a highly selective α2 agonist, has been tried at variable doses for the purpose of blunting the pressor response and also for its varied properties of anxiolysis and anaesthetic adjuvant effect without respiratory depression when used as sedative analgesic (4). Dexmedetomidine acts at locus coeruleus to produce its sympatholytic action. However, data on the equivalent dose of dexmedetomidine with that of esmolol which is already a known drug for attenuation of pressor response to direct laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation are limited.

Esmolol is a cardioselective β1- adrenergic receptor blocker and its ultra-short action is due to its short distribution half-life of 2 min and an elimination half-life of 9 min. The negative chronotropic and ionotropic effects of esmolol is due to its β adrenergic antagonism which leads to a decrease in cardiac output (5). Doses ranging from 0.5 to 2 mg/kg iv have been used in previous studies for the purpose of obtunding pressor response (6),(7),(8). As the consensus regarding the optimum dose as well as the mode and timing of delivery for esmolol has not been reached (9), this study is among the few studies conducted to determine the efficacy and the comparability of these two drugs with different pharmacokinetic profile in attenuation of pressor response following elective intubations.

The primary outcome was to study and compare the efficacy of intravenous dexmedetomidine versus intravenous esmolol in ablating the pressor response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation in normotensives undergoing elective surgeries. The secondary outcome was to assess the associated complication that may arise during laryngoscopy and intubation following the drug administration.

Material and Methods

The randomized double-blinded clinical study was conducted in Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences from September 2016 to March 2018, after approval by the Ethical and Scientific Committee. The protocol was registered at Clinical.Trial.Gov (CTRI Reg.No-REF/2018/03/018870).

Sample size calculation: In a study by Gogua and Ekan, (10) the mean HR of dexmedetomidine and esmolol group at 1 min postintubation was 82.27±8.25 beats/min and 89.38±10.6 beats/min, respectively. The sample size was calculated by estimating the difference between two means, with the level of significance at 0.05% (95% Confidence) and 80% power. The sample size was estimated at 54 for two groups, i.e. 27 samples per group. Finally, 30 patients in each group were recruited to compensate for a probable 10% non response rate.

Inclusion criteria: Total 60 patients aged between 20 to 60 years of age undergoing elective surgeries under general anaesthesia, were included for the study, after taking informed and written consent.

Exclusion criteria: Patients with anticipated difficult intubation, patients with ischaemic heart disease, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and those on any cardiovascular medications were excluded from the study.

Total 100 patients were assessed for eligibility. Sixty patients completed the study criteria for randomization. Forty patients dropped out of the study. A total of 60 patients who met the inclusion criteria were studied. Out of 60 patients two patients developed complications and had to be excluded, the rest completed the study (Table/Fig 1).

Procedure

Patients and the observer recording the parameters were blinded to the study. The patients were randomized into two groups with computer generated random numbers. Patients were kept nil per oral for 8 hours prior to surgery. Intravenous (iv) maintenance fluid with ringer lactate was started for all patients in the holding area.

Following the transfer to the operation room patients were premedicated with 0.01 mg/kg iv midazolam. There after standard monitors like Non Invasive Blood Pressure (NIBP), SpO2 and Electrocardiogram (ECG) with-II and V5 lead were connected and baseline parameters were recorded. A qualified anesthesiologist who was not involved in the recording of study parameters or performance of laryngoscopy administered the loading dose of the study drug as per group allotted .

• Group A received dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg added to 100 mL normal saline infusion which was started by a separate set through a three-way connector at a rate of 10 mL/min 10 minutes prior to induction.
• Group B had no drug added to 100 mL normal saline. Similarly, 2 minutes prior to laryngoscopy, Group B received esmolol 0.5 mg/kg diluted to 10 mL with normal saline as bolus over 30 sec and Group A received 10 mL of normal saline as bolus.

Patients were preoxygenated during infusion of the study drug for 3 minutes with 100% oxygen after which general anaesthesia was induced with fentanyl, iv 2 μg/kg; Induction agent thiopentone, iv (titrated untill the eyelash reflex was lost); with sevoflurane, 2% in 100% oxygen and checked for mask ventilation following which vecuronium, iv 0.1 mg/kg was given. Laryngoscopy and intubation was performed after mask ventilation for 4 minutes by the consultant anesthesiologist blinded for the group allocation. Those patients in whom endotracheal intubation took more than 45 sec, those in whom heart rate dropped to less than 50 bpm, a drop in SBP more than 20% of baseline were appropriately managed but were excluded from the study.

Patients who presented with heart rate of 50 beats per min with heamodynamic compromise received atropine 0.5 mg as required and decrease in MAP <65 mmHg or SBP less than 20% below the baseline value for >60sec was defined as hypotension received a dose of rescue with ephedrine of 100 μg/kg.

Anaesthesia was maintained with isoflurane 1-1.5% with a fresh gas flow of 2 L per minute (50% N2O in O2).The hemodynamic parameters Heart Rate (HR), Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP), Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP), and Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) were measured and recorded by the observer prior to induction (p), immediately at laryngoscopy (t0) and 1 (t1), 3 (t2), 5 (t3) minutes after intubation in all patients. Baseline hemodynamic parameters were measured prior to infusion of study drug that is preprocedure (p) and all the other measurements were compared with these basal levels. The MAP and/or HR >20% rise from baseline was taken as positive laryngoscopy response.

After the measurements were noted, the surgical incision was given. The rest of the anaesthetic management was decided by the attending anaesthesiologist.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 17.0 for windows was used for all statistical methods. Demographic data was presented as frequency and percentage. Categorical variables were analysed using the Chi-square test. Repeated-measurements one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used for intragroup analysis of hemodynamic responses to induction and intubation followed by paired t-test with Bonferroni’s correction. Student’s unpaired-t test was used for analysis of inter group variables. Continuous variables are presented as mean±SD. A value of p<0.05 was considered the minimum level of statistical significance.

Results

The two groups had comparable demographic profile (Table/Fig 2). Regarding complications however, two patients in the dexmedetomidine group developed bradycardia which required intervention and hence were excluded from the study. They were excluded from the study following initial randomization; for the comparison of demographic profile their data has been included, however, further statistical analysis was not carried out for these subjects.

Mean HR at baseline was comparable in both the groups (p-value=0.273). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of heart rate response at any of the time points. In group A, HR reached below the baseline at the end of 5 min (Table/Fig 3).

The mean SBP at baseline was comparable to start with and following the drug infusion, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant at any of the time points (p=0.622). On intragroup analysis, there was a maximum rise of SBP from the baseline values at 1 min following laryngoscopy (2.62% vs 5.39%) group A vs group B not exceeding the positive laryngoscopy response (MAP >20% baseline). In both the groups following induction the mean SBP at laryngoscopy (0 min) and 3 min values of SBP were below the baseline and the changes persisted thereafter (Table/Fig 4).

There was no statistically significant difference in the mean diastolic blood pressure at various time intervals between the two groups (p-value=0.838). The values of mean diastolic blood pressure at laryngoscopy and subsequent values following 3 min of intubation were all below the baseline values in both the groups (Table/Fig 5).

Regarding MAP both the groups had a decrease in MAP readings below the baseline at laryngoscopy that is at 0 min readings and following 3 min of laryngoscopy. However there was no episode of hypotension in either of the groups. Both the groups had a maximum rise in MAP readings at 1 min following which was not statistically significant (Table/Fig 6). There was no group wise difference at any of the time points (p-value=0.737).

There was an increase in heart rate maximally at 1min following intubation, the percentage rise (8.28% vs 13.59%) from the baseline values were below the margin for positive laryngoscopy response in both the groups. Although 1 min HR response in group B showed statistically significant rise in heart rate it was not considered clinically significant.

Repeated measures ANOVA for group A and group B in relation to HR revealed that both the groups had <15% increase in heart rate rise from the baseline and the HR reached the baseline within 5 min in group A. Whereas, it took more than 5 min in group B (Table/Fig 7), (Table/Fig 8). There was no group wise difference at any of the time points (p-value=0.471).

On intragroup analysis there was a rise of SBP from the baseline values in both the groups following the drug infusion that is preinduction (4.36% vs 1.61%) and in both the groups percent rise in SBP readings at 1min following laryngoscopy (2.62% vs 5.39%) did not exceed the positive laryngoscopy response (MAP>20% baseline). Repeated measures ANOVA for group A and group B with relation to SBP revealed statistically significant decrease in SBP from baseline values at 5 min following intubation which was well above the range of hypotension (Table/Fig 7), (Table/Fig 8).

Similar trends were observed for the mean DBP readings which showed a maximum rise of (1.23% vs 6.75%) from the baseline values of DBP at 1 min of laryngoscopy between the two groups, following which the mean DBP readings reached below the baseline values at 3 min of laryngoscopy (Table/Fig 7), (Table/Fig 8).

On intragroup analysis the mean readings of MAP showed a maximum rise of (2.15% vs 7.25%) from the baseline readings at 1min following laryngoscopy which showed no statistical significance. Also similar to SBP readings there was a decrease in MAP readings from the baseline values in both the groups at laryngoscopy that is 0 min values, 3 min and 5 min following laryngoscopy. Although the 5 min laryngoscopy values showed a statistically significant decrease in MAP readings (13.94% vs 11.755%) from the baseline, in both the groups, there was no drop in the hypotensive range, thus it was not considered clinically significant (Table/Fig 7), (Table/Fig 8).

Discussion

Both esmolol and dexmedetomidine have been studied for their role in ablation of the pressor response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. The adjuvant effect of these drugs, with anaesthesia induction agents, result in hypotension and bradycardia when given before laryngoscopy is dependent on the dose used.

In this study iv dexemedetomidine infusion in a dose of 1μg/kg 10 min prior to induction was found to be equally effective to iv esmolol bolus in a dose of 0.5 mg/kg when given 2 minutes prior to laryngoscopy in attenuating the response to endotracheal intubation.

Both the pressor response and the haemodynamic effects of esmolol are short-lived. The peak of transient haemodynamic reflexes occurs approximately 60-90 seconds after the laryngoscope is first introduced (11),(12),(13). Therefore, it is assumed that maximum sympathetic response occurs 30-80 seconds after endotracheal intubation as routine laryngoscopy and intubation takes (approximately 10-30 seconds) (14),(15),(16),(17),(18),(19). The pharmacokinetic profile of esmolol, having a distribution half time of approximately 2 minutes, with a peak effect at 2 min after a bolus injection and an elimination half-life of 9 minutes is ideal for blunting the pressor response during the transient period following laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation (20),(21). Various studies have compared both bolus dose versus continuous dose of esmolol for this purpose. In the meta-analysis conducted by Figueredo E and Garcia-Fuentes EM it was concluded that iv esmolol, when used as a continuous infusion in a dose of iv bolus loading dose of 500 μg/kg/ min over 4 min followed by continuous infusion dose of 200-300 μg/ kg/ min, for the purpose of blunting laryngoscopy response following rapid sequence induction, had minimal adverse effects (9).

In a study by Bensky KP et al., the dose-related effects of two low bolus doses 0.2mg/kg and 0.4 mg/kg of esmolol on HR and BP responses to laryngoscopy and intubation were compared (22). Their results were similar to the Canadian Multicentre trial, that is the control of SBP increase following laryngoscopy was blunted more effectively when esmolol was used in a dose of 0.4mg/kg along with the narcotic as compared to the esmolol dose of 0.2mg/kg with the same dose of narcotic comparing dose-related effects.

As the effects of esmolol rapidly dissipates, peak effects of beta blockade can be timed to occur simultaneously with the peak of stimulation from laryngoscopy and intubation for effective blunting of hemodynamic changes (23). Thus, in this study esmolol iv bolus was timed 2 min prior to laryngoscopy.

As both the drugs compared have a totally different pharmacokinetic profile, this study compared the efficacy of iv dexemedetomidine vs iv esmolol on attenuation of pressor response to laryngoscopy. As both the drugs have shown to have anaesthetic sparing effect at induction, thus low dose narcotic was used in a dose of 2μg/kg fentanyl after induction. Also the purpose of selecting low dose esmolol iv bolus compared to infusion of iv dexmedetomidine was to avoid any adverse effects of either of the drugs (24),(25).

Dexmedetomidine is a potent alpha-2 agonist, when used as an iv infusion at a dosage of 1 μg/kg, has an onset of action at about 5 min and has a peak effect which occurs within 15 min. Its elimination half life is about 2-3 hrs (26),(27). The biphasic blood pressure response is seen with dexmedetomidine. Following a bolus dose initially at higher concentrations, a transient increase in blood pressure and systemic vascular resistance is seen due to its action on peripheral α2 receptors on vascular smooth muscle. With decaying concentration, activation of postjunctional vascular α 2 receptors leads to decrease in blood pressure and cardiac output. Nonlinear concentration-dependent pharmacokinetics of dexmedetomidine is accounted for its sympathetic and its sympatholytic effects (28),(29).

In the study by Alagol A et al., compared iv dexmedetomidine vs iv esmolol in an infusion form for attenuating laryngoscopy response. Esmolol was found to be more efficacious in an infusion form when used in a dose of 1mg/kg followed by 250 μg/kg/min (30).

Li Z et al., conducted a meta-analysis comparing iv dexmedetomidine vs iv esmolol for blunting pressor response following rapid sequence Intubation (31). It was concluded that compared to esmolol, dexmedetomidine is more effective in blunting the hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation after rapid sequence induction. In yet another study by Ebert TJ et al., patients receiving a single preinduction intravenous bolus 200 mg of esmolol had a 50% attenuation of pressor response following rapid sequence induction, as compared with the placebo group (p-value <0.05) (32).

The above studies point out that as rapid sequence induction poses an exaggerated pressor response thus, explaining the shortfall of esmolol in low doses when compared to dexmedetomidine in blunting the pressor response.

In this study, dexmedetomidine at 1.0 μg/kg as intravenous infusion over 10 min was administered and two patients had bradycardia and hypotension. Dexmedetomidine can have an adjuvant effect with opioids in causing bradycardia and has shown to reduce opioid requirements (33). Higher doses of dexmedetomidine have been associated with the risk of bradycardia and hypotension and 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine was considered as a safer dose. However, bradycardia was encountered in two patients for whom dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg was given which was treated with injection atropine 0.6 mg.

This was in extrapolation to the study conducted by Bloor BC et al., where in amongst healthy young men with low resting heart rates, three patients had bradydysarhythmia within minutes of dexmedetomidine infusion. However, in this study, both the patients who had bradycardia were ASA I normotensives, and had normal resting heart rates (29).

When compared for HR and SBP, there was a mild preinduction rise in HR (4.99% vs 3.18%) and SBP (4.36% vs 1.61%), noted in the dexmedetomidine group, The findings were similar to the study conducted by Bajwa SS et al., where they noted a transient rise in HR and MAP for 3-5 min after the start of dexmedetomidine infusion which can be explained by the appearance of vasoconstriction effect before the central sympathetic action (34).

However, comparing postintubation values there was a maximum rise of heart rate (8.28% vs 13.59%) at 1 min following intubation, in both the groups, reaching baseline values at 5 min in dexmedetomidine group. Maximum percentage rise in SBP readings were noted at (2.62% vs 5.39%) 1 min following intubation which was less than positive laryngoscopy response (MAP >20% from baseline). There was a statistically significant decrease in SBP following 5 min after intubation however there was no episode of hypotension. There was no statistically significant difference (p-value=0.993) between the postinduction values of SBP between the two groups.

Most of the studies, where dexmedetomidine was compared with esmolol for obtunding the responses during rapid sequence intubation, considered dexmedetomidine to be more efficacious in this regard (31). This study followed an elective intubation with the use of low-dose narcotic along with iv induction agent and the test drug. Thus, timing these drugs by making use of the pharmacokinetic properties of these two drugs and the choice of drug dosage will determine the efficacy of its action. However as discussed in the study by Miller et al., various factors could independently influence the pressor response like the baseline values of haemodynamic parameters, premedication and the effect of opiates (23). Thus, comparison of these two drugs in various studies in the same dosages have given varied results, which calls for the need to determine other factors which may have a role in effecting its efficacy like patient factors, choice of induction agents, usage of narcotics.

Limitation(s)

Firstly, the results can not be applied to ASAIII and IV. Secondly, as authors did not opt for invasive arterial BP monitoring and the lack of serum catecholamine level measurements would have given more objective results.

Conclusion

This study showed that both intravenous dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg infused over 10 minutes prior to induction and esmolol intravenous bolus 0.5 mg/kg given 2 minutes prior to intubation were equally effective in suppressing the laryngoscopic response to intubation. To conclude both the drugs were able to attenuate the pressor response by almost two-third as seen by percentage limitation of the post- intubation rise of heart rate and blood pressure within 10-15%.

References

1.
Keniya VM, Ladi S, Naphade R. Dexmedetomidine attenuates sympathoadrenal response to tracheal intubation and reduces perioperative anaesthetic requirement. Indian J Anaesth. 2011;55(4):352-57. [crossref] [PubMed]
2.
Kovac AL. Controlling the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. J Clin Anesth. 1996; 8(1):63-79. [crossref]
3.
Bruder N, Ortega D, Granthil C. Consequences and prevention methods of hemodynamic changes during laryngoscopy and intratracheal intubation. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 1992;11(1):57-71. [crossref]
4.
Shin HW, Yoo HN, Kim DH, Lee H, Shin HJ, Lee HW. Preanesthetic dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg single infusion is a simple, easy, and economic adjuvant for general anesthesia. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2013; 65(2):114-20. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Srivastava VK, Agrawal S, Gautam SK, Ahmed M, Sharma S, Kumar R. Comparative evaluation of esmolol and dexmedetomidine for attenuation of sympathomimetic response to laryngoscopy and intubation in neurosurgical patients. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015;31(2):186-90. [crossref] [PubMed]
6.
Kindler CH, Schumacher PG, Schneider MC, Urwyler A. Effects of intravenous lidocaine and/or esmolol on hemodynamic responses to laryngoscopy and intubation: A double-blind, controlled clinical trial. J Clin Anesth. 1996;8(6):491-96. [crossref]
7.
Ghause MS, Singh V, Kumar A, Wahal R, Bhatia VK, Agarwal J. A study of cardiovascular response during laryngoscopy and intubation and their attenuation by ultra short acting β-blocker esmolol. Indian J Anaesth. 2002;46:104-06.
8.
Moon YE, Lee SH, Lee J. The optimal dose of esmolol and nicardipine for maintaining cardiovascular stability during rapid-sequence induction. J Clin Anesth. 2012;24(1):08-13. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Figueredo E, Garcia-Fuentes EM. Assessment of the efficacy of esmolol on the haemodynamic changes induced by laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation: a meta-analysis. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2001;45(8):1011-22. [crossref] [PubMed]
10.
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(5):314-19. [crossref] [PubMed]
11.
McCoy EP, Mirakhur RK, McCloskey BV. A comparison of the stress response to laryngoscopy. The Macintosh versus the McCoy blade. Anaesthesia. 1995;50(11):943-46. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Nishikawa K, Omote K, Kawana S, Namiki A. A comparison of hemodynamic changes after endotracheal intubation by using the lightwand device and the laryngoscope in normotensive and hypertensive patients. Anesth Analg. 2000;90(5):1203-07. [crossref] [PubMed]
13.
Kimura A, Yamakage M, Chen X, Kamada Y, Namiki A. Use of the fibreoptic stylet scope (Styletscope) reduces the hemodynamic response to intubation in normotensive and hypertensive patients. Can J Anaesth. 2001;48(9):919-23. [crossref] [PubMed]
14.
Araki K, Nomura R, Tsuchiya N, Yoshikawa Y. Cardiovascular responses to endotracheal intubation with the Bullard and the Macintosh laryngoscopes. Can J Anaesth. 2002;49(5):526. [crossref] [PubMed]
15.
Adachi YU, Satomoto M, Higuchi H, Watanabe K. Fentanyl attenuates the hemodynamic response to endotracheal intubation more than the response to laryngoscopy. Anesth Analg. 2002;95(1):233-37. [crossref] [PubMed]
16.
Montes FR, Giraldo JC, Betancur LA, Rincón JD, Rincón IE, Vanegas MV, Charris H. Endotracheal intubation with a lightwand or a laryngoscope results in similar hemodynamic variations in patients with coronary artery disease. Can J Anaesth. 2003;50(8):824-28. Doi: 10.1007/BF03019380. PMID: 14525823. [crossref] [PubMed]
17.
Kanaide M, Fukusaki M, Tamura S, Takada M, Miyako M, Sumikawa K. Hemodynamic and catecholamine responses during tracheal intubation using a lightwand device (Trachlight) in elderly patients with hypertension. J Anesth. 2003;17(3):161-165. [crossref] [PubMed]
18.
Pandazi AK, Louizos AA, Davilis DJ, Stivaktakis JM, Georgiou LG. Inhalational anesthetic technique in microlaryngeal surgery: a comparison between sevoflurane-remifentanil and sevoflurane-alfentanil anesthesia. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2003;112(4):373-78. Doi: 10.1177/000348940311200414. PMID: 12731635. [crossref] [PubMed]
19.
Kovac AL, Maye JP, Devane GG, Calkins JW. Hemodynamic comparison of direct vision versus blind oral endotracheal intubation. J Clin Anesth. 1995;7(5):411-16. [crossref]
20.
Ellenbogen KA, McCarthy EA, Pritchett EL. Effects of bolus injection of esmolol in healthy, exercising subjects. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1987;41:455-59. [crossref] [PubMed]
21.
Wiest D. Esmolol: A review of its therapeutic efficacy and pharmacokinetic characteristics. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1995;28(3):190-02. [crossref] [PubMed]
22.
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(5):437-42.
23.
Miller DR, Martineau RJ, Wynands JE, Hill J. Bolus administration of esmolol for controlling the haemodynamic response to tracheal intubation: the Canadian Multicentre Trial. Can J Anaesth. 1991;38(7):849-58. [crossref] [PubMed]
24.
Johansen JW, Schneider G, Windsor AM, Sebel PS. Esmolol potentiates reduction of minimum alveolar isoflurane concentration by alfentanil. Anesth Analg. 1998;87(3):671-76. [crossref] [PubMed]
25.
Khan ZP, Munday IT, Jones RM, Thornton C, Mant TG, Amin D. Effects of dexmedetomidine on isoflurane requirements in healthy volunteers. 1: Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interactions. Br J Anaesth. 1999; 83(3):372-80. [crossref] [PubMed]
26.
Aho MS, Erkola OA, Scheinin H, Lehtinen AM, Korttila KT. Effect of intravenously administered dexmedetomidine on pain after laparoscopic tubal ligation. Anesth Analg. 1991;73:112-18. [crossref] [PubMed]
27.
Kaur M, Singh PM. Current role of dexmedetomidine in clinical anesthesia and intensive care. Anesth Essays Res. 2011;5(2):128-33. [crossref] [PubMed]
28.
Sudheesh K, Harsoor S. Dexmedetomidine in anaesthesia practice: A wonder drug? Indian J Anaesth. 2011;55(4):323-24. [crossref] [PubMed]
29.
Bloor BC, Ward DS, Belleville JP, Maze M. Effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine in humans. II. Hemodynamic changes. Anesthesiology. 1992;77(6):1134-42. [crossref] [PubMed]
30.
Alagol A, Arar C, Kaya G, Colak A, Turan N, Gunday I. Effects of dexmedetomidine and esmolol on hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005;22:134-35. [crossref]
31.
Li Z, Xu L, Zheng J, Wang Q. Comparison of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine versus Esmolol for Attenuation of Hemodynamic Response to Tracheal Intubation after Rapid Sequence Induction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2019; 2019:6791971. [crossref] [PubMed]
32.
Ebert TJ, Bernstein JS, Stowe DF, Roerig D, Kampine JP. Attenuation of hemodynamic responses to rapid sequence induction and intubation in healthy patients with a single bolus of esmolol. J Clin Anesth. 1990;2(4):243-52. [crossref]
33.
Khan ZP, Ferguson CN, Jones RM. alpha-2 and imidazoline receptor agonists. Their pharmacology and therapeutic role. Anaesthesia. 1999;54(2):146-65. [crossref] [PubMed]
34.
Bajwa SJ, Kaur J, Singh A, Parmar SS, 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(2):123-28. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/49987.16502

Date of Submission: Apr 27, 2021
Date of Peer Review: Jun 17, 2021
Date of Acceptance: Mar 29, 2022
Date of Publishing: Jun 01, 2022

Author declarat ion:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Apr 28, 2022
• Manual Googling: Mar 28, 2022
• iThenticate Software: May 19, 2022 (19%)

Etymology: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com