Background: During general anesthesia procedure direct laryngoscopy along with endotracheal intubation has a transient sympathoadrenal response characterized by elevating heart rate(HR) and arterial BP. Although these physiological changes are usually tolerated by healthy individuals, there is a chance of precipitation of significant cerebrovascular and cardiovascular complications in patients with limited physiological reserve. Dexmedetomidine and esmolol are used because of rapid onset of action and good cardiovascular effects among the many agents used to blunt the pressor response.1,2 Objectives: To compare and find out the effectivity of the Dexmedetomidine and Esmolol for reduction of stress response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation by assessing changes in HR , SBP, and DBP during general anesthesia. Methodology: A comparative study was done in Department of Anesthesiology Department at Peerless Hospital, Kolkata, for 18 months. The study included 180 patients aged between 18 and 60 years with ASA physical status I and II who were scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia. Two groups were considered, Patients in Group D received dexmedetomidine at a dose of 1 μg/kg given intravenously over 10 minutes before induction, whereas those in Group E received intravenous esmolol 0.5 mg/kg 2 minutes prior to laryngoscopy. A standardized anesthetic protocol was followed for all patients. Hemodynamic variables, including HR, SBP, DBP, and MAP, were measured at baseline and at 1, 3, 5, 10, and 15 minutes after tracheal intubation. Data analysis was done using SPSS version 22, and a p-value of less than 0.05 was found to be statistically significant. Results: Patients receiving dexmedetomidine exhibited significantly better control of SBP at 1, 3, 5, and 10 minutes (p<0.05) after intubation, as well as significantly lower DBP across all post-intubation assessment points (p<0.05). MAP was also significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group up to 10 minutes following intubation (p<0.001). Although heart rate values remained consistently lower among patients administered dexmedetomidine, the differences between the two groups did not reach statistical significance (p>0.05). Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine showed more effectiveness than esmolol in controlling the hemodynamic response during laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. It provided superior control of arterial blood pressure while maintaining comparable heart rate stability, making it a more suitable pharmacological option for achieving perioperative hemodynamic stability during induction of general anesthesia.
Original Article
English
P. 174-182