Comparison of Esmolol and Lignocaine for Attenuation of Cardiovascular Stress Response to Laryngoscopy and Endotracheal Intubation

Samar Naeem; Roheena Wadud; Nasreen Laiq

doi:10.70749/ijbr.v3i3.2131

Authors

Samar Naeem Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Roheena Wadud Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Nasreen Laiq Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i3.2131

Keywords:

Hemodynamic response, Lignocaine, Esmolol, Laryngoscopy, Intubation, Randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Background: Endotracheal intubation causes considerable cardiovascular stress response, comprising increased heart rate, blood pressure, and myocardial oxygen demand. Drug agents like lignocaine and esmolol are used commonly to minimize these hemodynamic variations, but their relative effectiveness continues to be tested. Objective: To compare esmolol and lignocaine for attenuation of cardiovascular stress response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial. Duration and Place of Study: This study was conducted between May 2023 and October 2023 in the operation theatres of MTI–Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar. Methodology: Eighty patients, aged 18–60 years, ASA grade I–II, were randomly allocated to receive either lignocaine 1.5 mg/kg (Group L, n=40) or esmolol 0.75 mg/kg (Group E, n=40). Both drugs were administered intravenously over 10 minutes before induction. Hemodynamic parameters including heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressures, mean arterial pressure, and rate pressure product were recorded at baseline (T0), three minutes post-intubation (T3), and five minutes post-intubation (T5). Results: The mean age was 38.7 ± 10.2 years, with 56% male patients. At T3, Group L showed higher mean heart rate (102.4 ± 8.7 bpm vs 86.3 ± 7.9 bpm), systolic blood pressure (152.6 ± 12.1 mmHg vs 136.2 ± 10.4 mmHg), mean arterial pressure (108.5 ± 9.2 mmHg vs 96.4 ± 8.7 mmHg), and rate pressure product (15,630 ± 1,340 vs 11,740 ± 1,210) compared to Group E (p<0.001). At T5, heart rate (96.2 ± 7.4 bpm vs 82.1 ± 6.9 bpm) and rate pressure product (14,380 ± 1,250 vs 10,960 ± 1,080) remained significantly higher in Group L, while other parameters showed no significant differences. Conclusion: Esmolol demonstrated superior efficacy over lignocaine in blunting the hemodynamic responses to laryngoscopy and intubation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Appelboam T, Laing S, Lang N. Endotracheal intubation during cardiac arrest by critical care paramedics: a service evaluation of success rates following structured education. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2025;33(1):138.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-025-01444-w.

2. Abd Elhafez NF, Oriquat GA, Nsairat H, Jaber B, Abdelraouf AM, Fahmy MK, et al. Interaction between intubation and stress regarding hemodynamic and hormonal changes. J Int Med Res. 2025;53(2):3000605251315023.

https://doi.org/10.1177/03000605251315023.

3. Pramanik M, Chattopadhyay U, Chaudhuri S, Hussain SS, Singh NK, Banerjee S, et al. Comparison between transtracheal and intravenous 2% lignocaine in attenuating hemodynamic stress response following direct laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2025;25(1):262.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-025-03102-1.

4. Bahl A, Chilelli A, Faria R, Rozario N, Snijder R, Stark S, et al. Association between major cardiovascular events and abiraterone acetate compared to enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a post hoc analysis of the EVADE study. World J Urol. 2025;43(1):465.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-025-05841-9.

5. Kisielewska W, Kościółek M, Kowalczyk W, Mitura B, Mitura L, Rogula S, et al. Decreasing preoperative anxiety in patients with newly available multimodal approaches: a narrative review. J Clin Med. 2025;14(9):2940.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14092940.

6. Smith G, D'Cruz JR, Rondeau B, et al. General anesthesia for surgeons. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan–.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493199/

7. Boarescu I, Boarescu PM. Drug-induced myocardial infarction: a review of pharmacological triggers and pathophysiological mechanisms. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2024;11(12):406.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11120406.

8. Shahjehan RD, Sharma S, Bhutta BS. Coronary artery disease. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan–.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK564304/

9. Abstracts from the 18th European Headache Congress (EHC): Rotterdam, The Netherlands. J Headache Pain. 2025;26(Suppl 2):138.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-025-02062-8.

10. Jiang AM, Chajed LP, Malik MM, Lambotharan J, Williams J, Plume J, et al. Unravelling the role of electrocardiogram changes and ejection fraction in ischaemic stroke outcomes. Egypt Heart J. 2025;77(1):54.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s43044-025-00624-4.

11. Khalaji M, Babaie M, Bayat F, Rezaee M, Mashak B. Comparing the effects of magnesium sulfate and lidocaine spray on hemodynamic changes caused by laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2025;25(1):71.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-025-02962-x.

12. Pevtsov A, Ahmed I, Patel P, et al. Esmolol. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan–

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK518965/

13. Yan Y, An W, Mei S, Zhu Q, Li C, Yang L, et al. Real-world research on beta-blocker usage trends in China and safety exploration based on the FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS). BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2024;25(1):86.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40360-024-00815-w.

14. Roghani SH, Khan DS, Shafiq A, Akbar A, Mustafa W, Shah SQA, et al. Efficacy of different beta blockers in reducing mortality in heart-failure patients. Cureus. 2024;16(11):e74171.

https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.74171.

15. Gajniak D, Mendrala K, König-Widuch G, Parzonka S, Gierek D, Krzych ŁJ. Effect of lidocaine on intraoperative blood pressure variability in patients undergoing major vascular surgery. BMC Anesthesiol. 2024;24(1):170.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02550-5.

16. Mollick MT, Hossain MD, Ali NP. Attenuation of cardiovascular response during laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation by using pethidine with lignocaine. J Armed Forces Med Coll Bangladesh. 2010;6(2):42-3.

https://doi.org/10.3329/jafmc.v6i2.7274

17. Singh S, Laing EF, Ansah Owiredu WK, Singh A. Comparison of esmolol and lidocaine for attenuation of cardiovascular stress response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation in a Ghanaian population. Anesth Essays Res. 2013;7(1):83-8.

https://doi.org/10.4103/0259-1162.114008.

18. Kshirsagar AA, Dhulked VK, Joglekar GC. Comparing esmolol and lidocaine for reducing cardiovascular stress response during laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. J Chem Health Risks. 2023;13(5):918-22.

19. Gupta A, Wakhloo R, Gupta V, Mehta A, Kapoor BB. Comparison of esmolol and lignocaine for attenuation of cardiovascular stress response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. JK Science. 2009;11(2):78-81.

20. Chakravarthy PK, Babu KH, Ramineedi SV, Sindhura K, Ramya M, Preethi V. Comparative study of lignocaine over esmolol in attenuating the sympathetic responses to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. Indian J Anesth Analg. 2019;6(6):2049-56.

https://doi.org/10.21088/ijaa.2349.8471.6619.29

21. Joy A, Raghavan HV, Bindu M, Sunil M, Randeep. A comparative study on the effects of intravenous esmolol, fentanyl and lignocaine on attenuation of hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol. 2024;31(2):2285-93.

22. Rao DS, Osman AO. Comparison between esmolol and intravenous lignocaine for attenuating hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. Int J Sci Stud. 2022;10(2):69-72.

23. Patel HSP, Shashank MR, Shivaramu BT. Attenuation of hemodynamic response to tracheal extubation: a comparative study between esmolol and labetalol. Anesth Essays Res. 2018;12(1):180-5.

https://doi.org/10.4103/aer.AER_130_17.