• Anthony L Kovac and Amy Masiongale.
• Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS 66160, USA. akovac@kumc.edu
• J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth. 2007 Feb 1;21(1):45-50.

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of intravenous (IV) nicardipine versus esmolol in controlling heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) responses to emergence and extubation.DesignProspective, randomized, double blind.SettingUniversity hospital, single institution.ParticipantsTwenty-two American Society of Anesthesiologists physical class 1 to 3 adult inpatients scheduled for general anesthesia.InterventionsGeneral endotracheal anesthesia with oxygen/isoflurane and muscle relaxation. At end of surgery, with at least 2 twitches by nerve stimulator and end-tidal isoflurane <0.4%, muscle relaxant reversal was accomplished with neostigmine and glycopyrrolate. Two minutes postreversal, the IV study drug nicardipine, 0.03 mg/kg, or esmolol, 1.5 mg/kg, was administered. HR and BP were measured every minute up to 10 minutes and at minute 15 postreversal.Measurements And Main ResultsThere were no significant differences between groups in age, weight, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical class or preoperative hemodynamics (HR, BP, mean arterial pressure [MAP]). Compared with nicardipine, 0.03 mg/kg IV, esmolol, 1.5 mg/kg IV, significantly (p < 0.05) attenuated HR more than nicardipine for the 15-minute time period poststudy drug. Compared with esmolol, nicardipine was significantly (p < 0.05) more effective in controlling MAP and systolic BP for the 1- to 3-minute and diastolic BP for the 1- to 2-minute time periods poststudy drug. There were no episodes of hypotension or adverse events.ConclusionsAlthough esmolol, 1.5 mg/kg, IV was more effective than nicardipine, 0.03 mg/kg, IV for attenuating the HR response to extubation, nicardipine was more effective in controlling the BP response.

40 keywords...

hide…