Objective: We aim to compare the efficiency of dexmedetomidine, esmolol, and lidocaine on the hemodynamic response due to endotracheal extubation.

Materials and Methods: In this prospective study, 80 ASA I-II patients with age of 18 to 60, were divided randomly into 4 groups; Grup II (Dexmedetomidine), Grup II (Lidocaine), Grup III (Esmolol), and Grup IV (Control) groups (n=20 in each group). Group 1 received I μg/kg deksmedetomidin, Group II received 2 mg/kg lidokain, Group III received 1.5 mg/kg esmolol and Group IV received %0.9 NaCl within 5 min at the end of surgery. Hemodynamic data (before and after extubation) and the quality of extubation were used for comparison of groups.

Results: While pulse rate values were compared between and within in the groups, it was found significantly lower in Dexmedetomidine group in all experimental measurements. Mean arterial pressure values were also found significantly lower in Dexmedetomidine group in comparison with the other 3 groups. Comparison of mean arterial pressure within groups demonstrated an increase in all groups, but in dexmedetomidine group there was no significant difference.

Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine is more effective than lidocaine and esmolol in the control of hemodynamic response to the extubation. Lidocaine is found to be insufficient in the prevention of hemodynamic response related with extubation. Esmolol is found to be effective in the rise of pulse rate, but it was not as much effective as Dexmedetomidine on mean arterial pressure.