We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
The efficacy of labetalol vs dexmedetomidine for attenuation of hemodynamic stress response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation.
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia 2016 June
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of labetalol vs dexmedetomidine for attenuation of hemodynamic stress response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation.
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled, observer-blinded study.
SETTING: This study was carried out in Tanta University Hospital.
PATIENTS: Ninety patients of both sexes; American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II; age range from 20 to 60 years; scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were divided into 3 groups (30 each). Group A received 1 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine as intravenous (IV) infusion, group B received labetalol 0.25mg/kg IV, and group C received 10mL saline IV.
MEASUREMENTS: The groups were compared for heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and rate pressure product (RPP). Hemodynamic parameters were recorded during the preinduction; after induction; at intubation; and at 1, 3, 5, 10, and 15minutes. The primary outcomes were hemodynamic changes (HR, MBP, and RPP), and the secondary outcome was propofol dose requirement for induction of general anaesthesia.
RESULTS: Significant decrease (P < .05) in HR, MBP, and RPP in groups A and B in comparison with group C and in group A in comparison with group B. Just before intubation, there was a significant decrease (P < .05) in HR, MBP, and RPP in groups A and B in comparison with group C. In group C, there was a significant increase in HR, MBP, and RPP at all points when compared with the baseline. In group A, the mean propofol induction dose (mg) was statistically significantly low as compared with that in groups B and C.
CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine attenuates the hemodynamic stress response to laryngoscopy and intubation more effectively compared with labetalol without any deleterious effects. Furthermore, dexmedetomidine decreases dose of propofol for induction of anesthesia as guided by bispectral index.
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled, observer-blinded study.
SETTING: This study was carried out in Tanta University Hospital.
PATIENTS: Ninety patients of both sexes; American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II; age range from 20 to 60 years; scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were divided into 3 groups (30 each). Group A received 1 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine as intravenous (IV) infusion, group B received labetalol 0.25mg/kg IV, and group C received 10mL saline IV.
MEASUREMENTS: The groups were compared for heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and rate pressure product (RPP). Hemodynamic parameters were recorded during the preinduction; after induction; at intubation; and at 1, 3, 5, 10, and 15minutes. The primary outcomes were hemodynamic changes (HR, MBP, and RPP), and the secondary outcome was propofol dose requirement for induction of general anaesthesia.
RESULTS: Significant decrease (P < .05) in HR, MBP, and RPP in groups A and B in comparison with group C and in group A in comparison with group B. Just before intubation, there was a significant decrease (P < .05) in HR, MBP, and RPP in groups A and B in comparison with group C. In group C, there was a significant increase in HR, MBP, and RPP at all points when compared with the baseline. In group A, the mean propofol induction dose (mg) was statistically significantly low as compared with that in groups B and C.
CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine attenuates the hemodynamic stress response to laryngoscopy and intubation more effectively compared with labetalol without any deleterious effects. Furthermore, dexmedetomidine decreases dose of propofol for induction of anesthesia as guided by bispectral index.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app