Effects of Dexmedetomidine vs Esmolol on Postintubation Hemodynamics: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Tracheal intubation (TI) consistently induces tachycardia and elevated blood pressure which may be deleterious to patients, particularly those with existing cardiac conditions. Use of dexmedetomidine or esmolol has been described to attenuate this sympathetic response. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine vs esmolol in attenuating the hemodynamic response during TI. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed using PRISMA guidelines. A systematic literature search in electronic databases and grey literature was completed. Researchers assessed article eligibility, performed data extraction, and completed risk of bias assessment. Results were expressed as pooled differences for cardiovascular parameters between the drugs as the weighted mean difference with 95% CI. A P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic. Subgroup analyses exploring different drug regimens were performed. Results: Of 112 publications, 19 randomized controlled trials were included for descriptive analysis and 15 were selected for the meta-analysis with 948 patients. The use of dexmedetomidine vs esmolol provided lower heart rates and mean arterial pressures at 1, 3, 5, and 10 minutes and lower systolic and diastolic pressures at 1, 3, and 5 minutes after TI. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine blunts the hemodynamic response to TI more effectively vs 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".