Comparison between the Hemodynamic Profile with Esmolol versus Morphine as an Adjuvant Agent during Induction of Anesthesia

Usama Farooq, Rashid Ali, Tariq Mehmood, Neelofar Yousaf, Hafiz Ahmed Hassam Bhalli, Kenan Anwar Khan, Muhammad Farrukh Habib
{"title":"Comparison between the Hemodynamic Profile with Esmolol versus Morphine as an Adjuvant Agent during Induction of Anesthesia","authors":"Usama Farooq, Rashid Ali, Tariq Mehmood, Neelofar Yousaf, Hafiz Ahmed Hassam Bhalli, Kenan Anwar Khan, Muhammad Farrukh Habib","doi":"10.61919/jhrr.v4i2.348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The induction of general anesthesia is a critical phase in anesthetic practice, often associated with significant hemodynamic changes. These changes can lead to complications due to autonomic adrenergic responses. Esmolol, a beta-1 antagonist, is commonly used to blunt these responses, but its availability is limited in some settings. Morphine, a pure mu receptor antagonist, presents a potential alternative.\nObjective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of intravenous esmolol versus intravenous morphine in stabilizing the hemodynamic profile during the induction of general anesthesia.\nMethods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Anesthesiology, Combined Military Hospital, from January to June 2023. After obtaining ethical approval and trial registration, 220 ASA-II patients aged 25-55 years scheduled for elective surgeries under general anesthesia were enrolled. Patients were randomized into two groups: Group E (n=110) received 1.5 mg/kg intravenous esmolol three minutes before laryngoscopy and intubation, and Group M (n=110) received 0.1 mg/kg intravenous morphine five minutes before laryngoscopy and intubation. Baseline heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and oxygen saturation were recorded after pre-oxygenation with 100% oxygen for three minutes. Post-intubation, the same parameters were measured five minutes after intubation. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 25.0, with independent samples T-tests used to compare means. A p-value of ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.\nResults: The mean age was 39.41 ± 5.13 years in Group E and 39.97 ± 5.08 years in Group M (p=0.414). Mean weight was 68.14 ± 3.88 kg in Group E and 68.08 ± 3.80 kg in Group M (p=0.916). Pre-induction mean heart rate was 71.75 ± 2.33 bpm in Group E and 71.58 ± 2.35 bpm in Group M (p=0.585). Five minutes post-intubation, mean heart rate was significantly lower in Group E (80.73 ± 2.54 bpm) compared to Group M (87.62 ± 2.83 bpm) (p<0.001). Mean systolic blood pressure post-intubation was 132.88 ± 4.65 mm Hg in Group E and 140.25 ± 2.39 mm Hg in Group M (p<0.001). Mean diastolic blood pressure post-intubation was 77.58 ± 2.35 mm Hg in Group E and 85.33 ± 3.71 mm Hg in Group M (p<0.001). Oxygen saturation remained stable in both groups.\nConclusion: Intravenous esmolol is superior to intravenous morphine in blunting the hemodynamic responses to laryngoscopy and intubation, providing a more stable hemodynamic profile during the induction of general anesthesia.","PeriodicalId":507812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.61919/jhrr.v4i2.348","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The induction of general anesthesia is a critical phase in anesthetic practice, often associated with significant hemodynamic changes. These changes can lead to complications due to autonomic adrenergic responses. Esmolol, a beta-1 antagonist, is commonly used to blunt these responses, but its availability is limited in some settings. Morphine, a pure mu receptor antagonist, presents a potential alternative. Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of intravenous esmolol versus intravenous morphine in stabilizing the hemodynamic profile during the induction of general anesthesia. Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Anesthesiology, Combined Military Hospital, from January to June 2023. After obtaining ethical approval and trial registration, 220 ASA-II patients aged 25-55 years scheduled for elective surgeries under general anesthesia were enrolled. Patients were randomized into two groups: Group E (n=110) received 1.5 mg/kg intravenous esmolol three minutes before laryngoscopy and intubation, and Group M (n=110) received 0.1 mg/kg intravenous morphine five minutes before laryngoscopy and intubation. Baseline heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and oxygen saturation were recorded after pre-oxygenation with 100% oxygen for three minutes. Post-intubation, the same parameters were measured five minutes after intubation. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 25.0, with independent samples T-tests used to compare means. A p-value of ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The mean age was 39.41 ± 5.13 years in Group E and 39.97 ± 5.08 years in Group M (p=0.414). Mean weight was 68.14 ± 3.88 kg in Group E and 68.08 ± 3.80 kg in Group M (p=0.916). Pre-induction mean heart rate was 71.75 ± 2.33 bpm in Group E and 71.58 ± 2.35 bpm in Group M (p=0.585). Five minutes post-intubation, mean heart rate was significantly lower in Group E (80.73 ± 2.54 bpm) compared to Group M (87.62 ± 2.83 bpm) (p<0.001). Mean systolic blood pressure post-intubation was 132.88 ± 4.65 mm Hg in Group E and 140.25 ± 2.39 mm Hg in Group M (p<0.001). Mean diastolic blood pressure post-intubation was 77.58 ± 2.35 mm Hg in Group E and 85.33 ± 3.71 mm Hg in Group M (p<0.001). Oxygen saturation remained stable in both groups. Conclusion: Intravenous esmolol is superior to intravenous morphine in blunting the hemodynamic responses to laryngoscopy and intubation, providing a more stable hemodynamic profile during the induction of general anesthesia.
在麻醉诱导过程中使用艾司洛尔和吗啡作为辅助药物的血流动力学特征比较
背景:全身麻醉诱导是麻醉实践中的一个关键阶段,通常与显著的血流动力学变化有关。由于自主肾上腺素能反应,这些变化可能导致并发症。Esmolol 是一种 beta-1 拮抗剂,常用来抑制这些反应,但在某些情况下其可用性有限。吗啡是一种纯μ受体拮抗剂,是一种潜在的替代品:本研究旨在比较静脉注射艾司洛尔和静脉注射吗啡在全身麻醉诱导过程中稳定血流动力学状况的效果:本随机对照试验于 2023 年 1 月至 6 月在联合军医院麻醉科进行。在获得伦理批准和试验注册后,220 名年龄在 25-55 岁之间、计划在全身麻醉下进行择期手术的 ASA-II 级患者被纳入试验。患者被随机分为两组:E 组(n=110)在喉镜检查和插管前三分钟静脉注射 1.5 毫克/千克艾司洛尔,M 组(n=110)在喉镜检查和插管前五分钟静脉注射 0.1 毫克/千克吗啡。100% 氧气预吸氧三分钟后,记录基线心率、收缩压和舒张压以及血氧饱和度。插管后,在插管五分钟后测量同样的参数。使用 SPSS 25.0 版进行统计分析,使用独立样本 T 检验比较平均值。P值≤0.05为差异有统计学意义:E组的平均年龄为(39.41±5.13)岁,M组为(39.97±5.08)岁(P=0.414)。E 组的平均体重为 68.14 ± 3.88 千克,M 组为 68.08 ± 3.80 千克(P=0.916)。E 组诱导前平均心率为 71.75 ± 2.33 bpm,M 组为 71.58 ± 2.35 bpm(P=0.585)。插管后五分钟,E 组的平均心率(80.73 ± 2.54 bpm)明显低于 M 组(87.62 ± 2.83 bpm)(P<0.001)。E 组插管后的平均收缩压为 132.88 ± 4.65 mm Hg,M 组为 140.25 ± 2.39 mm Hg(P<0.001)。E 组插管后的平均舒张压为 77.58 ± 2.35 mm Hg,M 组为 85.33 ± 3.71 mm Hg(P<0.001)。两组的血氧饱和度均保持稳定:结论:静脉注射艾司洛尔比静脉注射吗啡更能减弱喉镜检查和插管时的血流动力学反应,从而在全身麻醉诱导过程中提供更稳定的血流动力学状况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信