Assuming the equation was meant to be read as
y = arctan(sqrt(x^2-1)) + arc csc(x)
We can say the derivative will be the sum of the two other derivatives
u = arctan(sqrt(x^2-1))
v = arc csc(x)
v will be easier to differentiate, know, knowing that
csc(arc csc(x)) = x
We differentiate both sides and use the chain rule, so
1 = csc^'(arc csc(x))*arc csc^'(x)
1/csc^'(arc csc(x)) = arc csc^'(x)
We know that the derivative of the cossecant is -csc(x)cot(x), so, in other words
1/(-csc(arc csc(x))cot(arc csc(x))) = arc csc^'(x)
Since they're both rational functions we can bring them up to the numerator
-tan(arc csc(x))/x = arc csc^'(x)
Using the pythagorean identity 1 + cot^2(theta) = csc^2(theta) we have
1 + 1/(tan^2(arc csc(x))) = x^2
1/(tan^2(arc csc(x))) = x^2 - 1
tan(arc csc(x)) = 1/sqrt(x^2 - 1) so
arc csc^'(x) = -1/(xsqrt(x^2-1))
(There are authors that say it like this, there are people that have that leading x as |x|, considering we're working with x > 1, the absolute value bars aren't needed regardless of your philosophy if they should be there or not).
Now, we do u = arctan(sqrt(x^2-1)), for the sake of brevity, I'll skip the proof of the arctan's derivative, as the process is much like the one used for the arccsc, except it'd involve the tan^2(theta) + 1 = sec^2(theta) identity.
So we have
u = arctan(sqrt(x^2-1))
u^' = arctan^'(sqrt(x^2-1))*sqrt((x^2-1))^'*2x
It's important to remember we need to apply the chain rule twice here.
u^' = 1/(1+(sqrt(x^2-1))^2)*1/(2sqrt(x^2-1))*2x
u^' = 1/(1+x^2-1)*1/(2sqrt(x^2-1))*2x
u^' = 1/x^2*1/(2sqrt(x^2-1))*2x
u^' = 1/(xsqrt(x^2-1))
Summing them up we have
y^' = 1/(xsqrt(x^2-1)) - 1/(xsqrt(x^2-1)) = 0
Which makes sense if you look at the graph for x > 0. For smaller values the absolute value probably would have mattered and would have made the derivative non-zero.