The Safety of Perioperative Esmolol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although β blockers have been found to decrease perioperative myocardial infarction (MI), β-blocker-mediated hypotension is associated with postoperative stroke and mortality. In this systematic review we assessed the safety and efficacy of the β1-specific, adrenergic receptor antagonist esmolol in noncardiac surgery. Safety was assessed by analyzing the incidence of postoperative hypotension and bradycardia, and efficacy was assessed by analyzing the incidence of myocardial ischemia. METHODS: We searched electronic databases for randomized placebo-controlled trials of the perioperative use of esmolol in noncardiac surgery. We abstracted data on design, demographics, hemodynamic changes (planned or unplanned), myocardial ischemia, and MI. Heterogeneity was assessed via meta-regression. RESULTS: Our search identified 67 trials, which were well matched for study characteristics. The quality of the studies was limited by small sample size and poorly defined allocation concealment. Overall, the analysis demonstrates an increased incidence of unplanned hypotension (OR 2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48 to 3.04), which was found to be dose related (R(2) = 0.408). An increased incidence of significant bradycardia was not demonstrated (OR 1.18; 95% CI, 0.69 to 2.02). Dose titration was shown to influence both the change in arterial blood pressure and heart rate. In comparison with placebo, esmolol decreased the frequency of myocardial ischemia in the 7 evaluating studies (OR 0.17; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.45). We did not assess the effects of esmolol on the incidence of MI or stroke because the incidence of these events was too infrequent in the retrieved studies. CONCLUSION: This review suggests that titration of esmolol to a hemodynamic end point can be safe and effective. Safety data from studies in higher-risk patients are needed to establish a perioperative safety and efficacy profile of esmolol.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".