Why the study?
Does esmolol infusion prevent tachycardia in response to intubation and maintain hemodynamic stability in patients undergoing CABG?
Does esmolol infusion prevent tachycardia in response to intubation and maintain hemodynamic stability in patients undergoing CABG?
Esmolol effectively blunts the tachycardic response to intubation during CABG under high-dose fentanyl anesthesia, with only minor increases in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure.
Supports esmolol to blunt intubation tachycardia in CABG; extends perioperative beta-blockade evidence under high-dose fentanyl.
The safety and efficacy of esmolol during high-dose fentanyl anesthesia were studied in 37 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The anesthetic management consisted of fentanyl 75 micrograms/kg, pancuronium 0.15 mg/kg, and O2. To assess the safety of esmolol, it was administered in a double-blind manner to 17 anesthetized patients prior to surgical incision. Infusion of the drug was increased in stepwise fashion to obtain administration rates between 100 and 300 micrograms X kg-1 X min-1. Esmolol produced small but significant increases in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) (8.3 +/- 1.7 to 13.2 +/- 2.0 mmHg) when compared with placebo (10.9 +/- 1.0 to 12.1 +/- 0.6 mmHg) (P less than 0.05). For the other studied parameters (heart rate, mean arterial pressure, central venous pressure, cardiac index, stroke index, left ventricular stroke work index, systemic vascular resistance, and peripheral vascular resistance), no significant differences were observed between esmolol and placebo. To evaluate the efficacy of esmolol, 20 patients were randomly assigned to an esmolol group (n = 11) or a placebo group (n = 9). The study medication was infused from 5 min before induction through initiation of cardiopulmonary bypass. Infusion of esmolol at 200 micrograms X kg-1 X min-1 prevented tachycardia in response to intubation. In the esmolol group the heart rate increased from 63.4 +/- 2.7 to 67.6 +/- 2.9 beats/min after intubation, while in the placebo group it increased from 61.4 +/- 4.3 to 72.4 +/- 3.4 beats/min (P less than 0.05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Girard et al. (1986) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: