ArticleAnesthesia, essays and researches
Prospective Randomized Study Comparing the Usefulness of Dexmedetomidine versus Esmolol in Blunting Hemodynamic Responses to Intubation in Surgical Patients.
Article in Anesthesia, essays and researches. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Dexmedetomidine vs Esmolol on Postintubation Hemodynamics: A Meta-Analysis.Anesthesia progress · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sympathetic response due to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation though transient, could be life-threatening in patients with underlying cardiovascular diseases. Aim of the Study: The aim of this study is to assess the effects of dexmedetomidine and esmolol on the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing general anesthesia for elective surgery. Settings and Design: Prospective, randomized study conducted in a tertiary care center. Materials and Methods: Sixty patients were recruited and randomly divided into two groups. Group A received 0.5 mcg.kg Statistical Analysis Used: Chi-square test, independent sample Results: Baseline HR was statistically different in both groups. There was significant decrease in percentage change in baseline HR in Group A compared to Group B at preinduction (20.44% ± 10.82%, 13.63% ± 11.84%), before intubation (23.49 ± 12.62, 13.95 ± 14.86), and 7 min after intubation (14.65 ± 12.62, 6.80 ± 16.11). Percentage change in HR remained comparable in all other time points. Baseline MAP was comparable between the groups. Percentage change from baseline of MAP was significantly higher in Group B before intubation. All other time points MAP were comparable. The incidence of hypotension was comparable in both groups. Conclusions: Both dexmedetomidine and esmolol suppressed the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation, but dexmedetomidine was more effective than esmolol in maintaining hemodynamic stability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.