4.6 Article

Postoperative beneficial effects of esmolol in treated hypertensive patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
Volume 100, Issue 2, Pages 211-214

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aem333

Keywords

anaesthesia, general

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. In an attempt to decrease haemodynamic instability and early postoperative complications such as nausea, vomiting, and pain, esmolol was added to the routine alfentanil infusion of patients with treated hypertension undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods. Forty consecutive ASA class II patients with controlled hypertension about to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized into two groups: an esmolol group (Group E, n=20) was given a 1 mg kg(-1) bolus of esmolol and a placebo group (Group P, n=20) was given an identical volume of Ringer's lactate. The rate of esmolol infusion was adjusted to keep the heart rate between 65 and 75 beats min(-1) and was 5-10 mu g kg(-1) min(-1) throughout the procedure. After operation, patients reported their nausea using a four-point scale. Results. Esmolol had an opioid-sparing effect intraoperatively (P=0.001). Postoperative requirements for antiemetics were significantly less in the esmolol group, with no antiemetics given to eight patients. In the placebo group, however, all patients required at least one dose of antiemetic (P=0.007). The frequency of PONV did not correlate to the amounts of alfentanil, propofol, postoperative antiemetics consumed, or to female gender, non-smoking status, and history of PONV or motion sickness. Postoperative analgesic consumption in Group E was significantly lower than in Group P (P=0.012). Conclusions. Esmolol had an opioid-sparing effect in the intraoperative and immediate postoperative period in hypertensive patients undergoing laparoscopy. When combined with alfentanil, it was more effective than placebo in decreasing early PONV.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available