Pharmacodynamic comparison of esmolol, labetalol, and lignocaine in modulating sympathetic stress response during intubation: A randomized controlled trial.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51168/sjhrafrica.v6i12.2394Keywords:
Esmolol, Labetalol, Lignocaine, Intubation stress response, Haemodynamics, Sympathetic attenuationAbstract
Background:
Laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation trigger a pronounced sympathetic stress response, resulting in tachycardia, hypertension, and increased myocardial oxygen demand. Pharmacological attenuation of this response is essential, particularly in patients at cardiovascular risk. Esmolol, labetalol, and lignocaine are frequently used agents, but direct comparative pharmacodynamic data under identical clinical conditions remain limited.
Aim:
To compare the pharmacodynamic efficacy of esmolol, labetalol, and lignocaine in modulating haemodynamic responses to laryngoscopy and intubation.
Methods:
This prospective, randomized, double-blind study included 75 ASA I–II patients aged 20–60 years undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia. Patients were allocated to receive Esmolol 0.5 mg/kg (Group ES), Labetalol 0.25 mg/kg (Group LB), or Lignocaine 1 mg/kg (Group LG) intravenously 2 minutes before intubation. Heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and rate-pressure product (RPP) were recorded at baseline, pre-intubation, at intubation, and 1–10 minutes post-intubation.
Results:
Labetalol produced the most effective attenuation of HR, SBP, DBP, and MAP at intubation and during the first 10 minutes post-intubation (p < 0.05). Esmolol showed moderate suppression, mainly of HR, while lignocaine demonstrated the least haemodynamic control. RPP peaked highest in the lignocaine group (22,030.96), followed by esmolol (15,332.16), and was lowest with labetalol (13,635.60), indicating superior myocardial protection with labetalol.
Conclusion:
Labetalol is the most effective agent in suppressing the sympathetic haemodynamic response to intubation, followed by esmolol. Lignocaine alone provides inadequate attenuation.
Recommendation
Based on the findings, labetalol may be preferred as the first-line agent for attenuating haemodynamic stress response during laryngoscopy and intubation, especially in patients at cardiovascular risk.
References
King BD, Harris LC, Greifenstein FE, Elder JD, Dripps RD. Reflex circulatory responses to direct laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. Anesthesiology. 1951;12:556-66. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-195109000-00002
Stoelting RK. Circulatory changes during laryngoscopy and intubation with or without lidocaine. Anesthesiology. 1977;47:381-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-197710000-00012
Prys-Roberts C. Anaesthesia and hypertension. Br J Anaesth. 1984;56:711-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/56.7.711
Low JM, Harvey JT, Prys-Roberts C, Dagnino J. Studies on anesthesia and hypertension: sympathetic responses to laryngoscopy. Br J Anaesth. 1986;58:471-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/58.5.471
Fassoulaki A, Kaniaris P. Intracranial pressure changes following intubation. Anaesthesia. 1983;38:571-4.
Derbyshire DR, Chmielewski A, Fell D, Vater M, Achola K, Smith G. Catecholamine responses to tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth. 1983;55:855-60. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/55.9.855
Miller RD, Cohen NH, Eriksson LI, Fleisher LA. Miller's Anesthesia. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2015.
Reves JG, Fragen RJ, Vinik HR, Greenblatt DJ. Esmolol: pharmacology and clinical applications. Anesth Analg. 1985;64:327-35.
O'Hara DA, Fragen RJ. Clinical use of labetalol in anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 1985;64:327-35.
Wilson IG, Meiklejohn BH, Smith G. Intravenous lignocaine for attenuation of cardiovascular response to intubation. Anaesthesia. 1981;36:347-52.
Mikawa K, Nishina K, Maekawa N. Attenuation of cardiovascular responses to tracheal intubation with differing drugs. Anesth Analg. 1993;76:1065-70. https://doi.org/10.1213/00000539-199303000-00024
Kautto UM. Attenuation of cardiovascular intubation responses with β-blocking agents. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1982;26:217-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-6576.1982.tb01757.x
Dundee JW, McIlroy PDA. Comparison of labetalol and practolol for control of intubation responses. Anaesthesia. 1980;35:10-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1980.tb03713.x
Helfman SM, Gold MI, DeLisser EA. Esmolol reduces haemodynamic responses to laryngoscopy. Anesth Analg. 1991;72:373-8.
James MF, Banner MJ. Comparison of lignocaine and β-blockers for suppression of cardiovascular responses to intubation. J Clin Anesth. 1988;1:16-20.
Lee HK, Chung WJ, Lee MH. Labetalol's efficacy in attenuating sympathetic response to endotracheal intubation. Korean J Anesthesiol. 1992;25:315-21. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.1992.25.5.879
Cammu G, Deloof T, De Paepe P. Esmolol in acute control of peri-intubation hypertension. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 1991;42:103-9.
Stoelting V, Giesecke T. Comparative effects of esmolol and opioids on RPP during intubation. Can J Anaesth. 1987;34:30-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03015155
Laurito CE, Baughman VL. Intravenous lidocaine: limitations in controlling haemodynamic stress. J Clin Anesth. 1991;3:186-93.
Splinter WM, Cervenko F. Lidocaine for intubation response: a meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth. 1994;41:912-8.
Korenaga K, Yoshikawa S. Peri-intubation use of labetalol: safety and haemodynamic efficacy. J Anesth. 1996;10:25-31.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ananta Narayan Patra, Rojalin Sahoo, Suryasnata Sahoo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
