In a double-blind study the effect of esmolol and alfentanil on the QT interval of the ECG corrected by the heart rate (QTc), heart rate and arterial pressure during anaesthetic induction was studied in 59 oxycodone- and atropine-premedicated ASA class I-(II) patients with a mean age of 26 yr (range 15-50 yr). The patients were randomly allocated to one of the four groups: saline, esmolol 2 mg.kg-1, esmolol 3 mg.kg-1 or alfentanil 0.03 mg.kg-1. Both doses of esmolol prevented the prolongation of the QTc interval after thiopental and suxamethonium, but not after laryngoscopy and intubation. Alfentanil prevented the prolongation of the QTc interval following thiopental, suxamethonium and laryngoscopy but not after intubation. Esmolol did not prevent the increase in the heart rate and arterial pressure in response to laryngoscopy and intubation. No cardiovascular responses to laryngoscopy and intubation occurred in the patients treated with alfentanil. No cardiac arrhythmias occurred in the esmolol 3 mg.kg-1 group, whereas the frequency of ventricular ectopic beats was 40% in the saline group and 13-20% in the other groups.

The purpose of this double-blind randomized work was to study the effect of alfentanil and esmolol and their half-dose combination on the increases of heart rate and arterial pressure and on the prolongation of the QTc interval of the ECG occurring during anaesthetic induction. Sixty ASA class I-II patient with mean age ranging from 26 to 32 yr among the groups. Patients were allocated to one of four equal groups to receive saline, esmolol 2 mg.kg-1, alfentanil 0.03 mg.kg-1 and alfentanil 0.015 mg.kg-1+esmolol 1 mg.kg-1. Anaesthesia was induced with thiopentone. Succinylcholine was used to facilitate tracheal intubation. Haemodynamic variables were measured non-invasively and the QTc interval with the aid of a microcomputer. Comparisons between the groups were performed using two-way analysis of variance with repeated measures. Both alfentanil and alfentanil-esmolol prevented the increase of heart rate and arterial pressure caused by intubation whereas esmolol prevented only the increase of the heart rate. None of the treatments prevented prolongation of the QTc interval after intubation and only alfentanil prevented that after succinylcholine. The present results suggest that in the prevention of the haemodynamic responses to tracheal intubation, the half-dose combination of alfentanil and esmolol is as effective as alfentanil and superior to esmolol. The combination is preferable to relatively large doses of either drug in circumstances where side effects, such as respiratory depression due to alfentanil or bradycardia due to both drugs should be minimized.

On the basis of the present study, esmolol-bolus + infusion during alfentanil-isoflurane anaesthesia in healthy, middle-aged patients is a useful treatment in circumstances where an increase of the heart rate, prolongation of the QTc interval and cardiac arrhythmias should be avoided.

During the anesthesia induction, the QTc interval was significantly shorter when esmolol was co-administered with either propofol or metohexital. The hemodynamic responses were properly controlled with the combination of metohexital and esmolol as well as with propofol alone, but the combination of propofol and esmolol tended to cause hemodynamic depression.