Comparison of Nicardipine Versus Esmolol in Attenuating the Hemodynamic Responses to Anesthesia Emergence and Extubation

Objective: The 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.Design: Prospective, randomized, double blind.Setting: University hospital, single institution.Participants: Twenty-two American Society of Anesthesiologists physical class 1 to 3 adult inpatients scheduled for general anesthesia.Interventions: General 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 Results: There 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.Conclusions: Although 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.