ObjectiveTo evaluate the feasibility and efficiency of patient-controlled analgesia and sedation (PCAS) with propofol and remifentanil for colonoscopy in elderly patients. MethodsSixty elderly patients preparing for painless colonoscopy between May and September 2015 were randomly allocated into PCAS group and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) group with 30 patients in each. In the PCAS group, the mixture of remifentanil and propofol at 0.6 mL/(kg·h) was pumped continuously after an initial bolus of 0.05 mL/kg mixture. The examination began three minutes after the infusion was finished. Patients could press the self-control button. Each bolus delivered 1 mL and the lockout time was 1 minute. In the TIVA group, patients received fentanyl at 1 μg/kg and midazolam at 0.02 mg/kg intravenously, and accepted intravenous propofol at 0.8-1.0 mg/kg two minutes later. The examination began when the patients lost consciousness. ResultsA significant decline of mean arterial blood pressure was detected within each group after anesthesia (P < 0.05). The decrease of mean blood pressure in the TIVA group was more significant than that in the PCAS group (P < 0.05). The heart rate, pulse oxygen saturation and respiratory rate decreased significantly after anesthesia in both the two groups (P < 0.05), while end-tidal CO2 increased after anesthesia without any significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The induction time, time to insert the colonoscope to ileocecus, and total examination time were not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). As for the time from the end of examination to OAA/S score of 5 and to Aldrete score of 9, the PCAS group was significantly shorter than the TIVA group (P < 0.05). ConclusionPCAS with remifentanil and propofol can provide sufficient analgesia, better hemodynamic stability, lighter sedation, and faster recovery compared with TIVA.
目的:探讨老年手术患者椎管内麻醉后应用异丙酚镇静,脑电双频指数、异丙酚血药浓度和镇静深度之间的相关性［1］。方法:48例ASAⅠ~Ⅱ级择期手术患者,分为老年组(65~85岁)和年轻组(18~40岁),每组24例。为尽快达到稳态血药浓度,采用靶控输注方式给药。异丙酚靶浓度从0.5 μg/mL起逐渐增加,直至患者对轻推无反应(意识消失),每个浓度维持5min。连续记录EEG参数,在每一稳态血药浓度末,记录BIS、95%SEF, 桡动脉取血(高效液相色谱法测定异丙酚血药浓度),并评定镇静深度(OAA/S评分法)。用Spearman’s等级相关进行相关分析,并计算预测概率 (Pk) 值。结果:两组BIS (r=0.935~0.955) 与镇静水平的相关性优于血药浓度(r =0.849~0.870)和95%SEF(r =0.503~0.571),BIS的Pk值高(0.942~0.972)。在同一镇静评分(OAA/S 4~1)时,老年组BIS值明显高于年轻组(Plt;0.01),而血药浓度低于年轻组(Pgt;0.05)。结论:BIS在监测异丙酚镇静水平及预测意识消失方面有重要价值,在同一镇静评分时,老年人BIS值高于年轻人。
Objective To evaluate the sedative effects of fentanyl on ventilated patients in intensive care unit (ICU ).Methods Thirty orotracheal intubated and mechanical ventilated medical patients in ICU were randomly divided into two groups，ie.Midazolam group (group M) and midazolam combined with fentanyl group with a proportion of 100∶1 (group M+F) The sedatives were continuously intravenously infused to achieve a target motor activity assessment scale (MAAS) of 3 and ventilator synchrony score of adaptation to the intensive care environment (ATICE) ≥3 after loading dose of midazolam.The sedation level was evaluated and the infusion rate was adjusted to maintain the target sedation goal every 2 h and the hemodynamic，respiratory and sedative parameters were recorded simultaneously.The oxygenation index were measured at 12 and 24 h.The infusion were ceased after 24 h,then the sedative degree was assessed every 30 min until MAAS ≥3 and the recover time were recorded.Results There were no significant differences in blood pressure，oxygenation index and adjustive frequency of drugs between the two groups (all Pgt;0.05).The heart rate，respiratory rate and airway pressure in group M+F decreased significantly than those in Group M (Plt;0.05).The amount of midazolam used and cost of sedatives were lower than those in group M (Plt;0.05).Satisfactory degree of sedation or ventilator synchrony and awakeness score of ATICE in group M+F were higher than those in group M.The recover time was shorter in groupM+F (Plt;0.05).Conclusion In medical ventilated patients, fentanyl improves the sedative effect of midazolam and reduces the dose of midazolam,hence,reduce the total cost of sedatives.
Objective To assess the correlation between bispectral index (BIS) and richmond agitation sedation scale (RASS) and sedation-agitation scale (SAS) through the spearman correlation coefficient by systematic review. Methods Databases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2016), CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and CBM were searched from inception to July 2016 to collect literature on the correlation between BIS and RASS and SAS. The studies were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After extracting data and assessing the quality of the included studies, meta-analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta Analysis 3.0 software. Results A total of 12 studies involving 397 patients were included. BIS was positively correlated with RASS score and SAS, and the summary correlation coefficient was 0.742 with 95% CI 0.678 to 0.795 and 0.605 with 95% CI 0.517 to 0.681, respectively. Conclusion BIS has a good correlation with RASS and SAS, which will provide more options for assessing sedation of patients with mechanical ventilation in ICU.
Objective To investigate the applied significance of adjustable low-concentration of mixed oxygenand nitrous oxide inhalation sedation combined with lidocaine local anesthesia in anorectal surgery. Methods Three hundreds patients underwent anorectal surgery in our hospital were divided into control group （n=154） and observation group （n=146）. Patients of control group underwent pure lidocaine local anesthesia， and patients of observation group underwent mixed oxygen and nitrous oxide sedation analgesia combined with lidocaine local anesthesia. Vital signs before and after operation as well as results of sedation and analgesia were compared between the 2 groups. Results Anorectal surgeries of all patients were performed successfully. There were no significant differences on change of heart rate， blood pressure， and oxygen saturation between the 2 groups before and after operation （P＞0.05）. The operation time between the control group 〔（36.3±6.8） min〕 and observation group 〔（35.4±6.5） min〕 had no statistically significant difference（t=-0.607， P=0.544）. The analgesic effects （Z=-6.859， P=0.000） and sedative effects （Z=-5.275， P=0.000） of obser-vation group were both better than those of control group. Conclusions Low-concentration of mixed oxygen and nitrous oxide inhalation sedation combined with lidocaine local anesthesia can relieve the discomfort of fear and pain， no side-impacts on vital sign before and after operation were observed，and it has better effects of sedation and analgesia， therefore it can be recommended to clinical application.
Objective To evaluate the sedative and analgesic efficacy and adverse effect of dexmedetomidine versus propofol on the postoperative patients in intensive care unit (ICU). Methods The relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, SCI, SpringerLinker, ScinceDirect, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and CBM from the date of their establishment to November 2011. The quality of the included studies was evaluated after the data were extracted by two reviewers independently, and then the meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.1. Results Ten RCTs involoving 793 cases were included. The qualitative analysis results showed: within a certain range of dosage as dexmedetomidine: 0.2-2.5 μg/(kg·h), and propofol: 0.8-4 mg/(kg·h), dexmedetomidine was similar to propofol in sedative effect, but dexmedetomidine group needed smaller dosage of supplemental analgesics during the period of sedative therapy. The results of meta-analysis showed: the percentage of patients needing supplemental analgesics in dexmedetomidine group was less than that in propofol group during the period of sedative therapy (OR=0.24, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.68, P=0.008). Compared with the propofol group, the duration of ICU stay was significantly shorter in the dexmedetomidine group (WMD= –1.10, 95%CI –1.88 to –0.32, P=0.006), but the mechanical ventilated time was comparable between the two groups (WMD=0.89, 95%CI –1.15 to 2.93, P=0.39); the incidence of adverse effects had no significant difference between two groups (bradycardia: OR=3.57, 95%CI 0.86 to 14.75, P=0.08; hypotension: OR=1.00, 95%CI 0.30 to 3.32, P=1.00); respiratory depression seemed to be more frequently in propofol group, which however needed further study. Mortalities were similar in both groups after the sedative therapy (OR=1.03, 95%CI 0.54 to 1.99, P=0.92). Conclusion Within an exact range of dosage, dexmedetomidine is comparable with propofol in sedative effect. Besides, it has analgesic effect, fewer adverse effects and fewer occurrences of respiratory depression, and it can save the extra dosage of analgesics and shorten ICU stay. Still, more larger-sample, multi-center RCTs are needed to provide more evidence to support this outcome.
【摘要】 目的 探讨腰硬联合麻醉复合丙泊酚恒速输注清醒镇静的可行性、理想的药物剂量、术中知晓情况以及麻醉质量和效果。 方法 收集2009年3-12月480例美国麻醉医师协会（ASA）Ⅰ～Ⅲ级拟在腰硬联合麻醉下行下腹部、会阴部、下肢手术的患者480例，随机分为咪达唑仑组（M组）、丙泊酚Ⅰ组（PA组）、丙泊酚Ⅱ组（PB组）、丙泊酚Ⅲ组（PC组），每组各120例。四组患者均于腰2-3或腰3-4行腰硬联合麻醉，蛛网膜下腔注入轻比重0.2 %布比卡因12～15 mg，麻醉平面确切后，M组予以咪达唑仑0.04~0.06 mg/kg，PA组先予以负荷量丙泊酚0.50 mg/kg再以2.00 mg/（kg•h）剂量持续泵注，PB组予以负荷量丙泊酚0.75 mg/kg再以3.00 mg/（kg•h）剂量持续泵注，PC组予以负荷量丙泊酚1.00 mg/kg再以3.75 mg/（kg•h）剂量持续泵注。观察患者给药前（T0）、给药1（T1）、3（T2）、5（T3）、10（T4）、30（T5）、60 min（T6）各时点血流动力学平均动脉血压（MAP）、心率（HR）的变化、脑电双频指数（BIS）值及镇静评分、术中所看到的图片的回忆及不良反应。 结果 各组在给予镇静药后MAP、HR均有所下降，但测量值的变化在正常范围内；在T3时间点，各组BIS值及镇静/警醒OAA/S评分降低，与T0比较，差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05）；与其他3组比较，在T4、T5、T6时点PC组BIS值与OAA/S评分降低，差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05），PC组的镇静遗忘满意率高于其他3组；各组间未见发生严重的舌后坠、呼吸暂停和血氧饱和度（SpO2）lt;90%。 结论 在下腹部、下肢手术中，应用腰硬联合麻醉复合1.00 mg/kg负荷量的丙泊酚继而以3.75 mg/（kg•h）剂量持续泵注，可取得良好的镇静效果，不良反应小。【Abstract】 Objective To investigate the feasibility, ideal dose, intra-operative awareness as well as the quality and effectiveness of constant infusion of propofol under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) for conscious sedation. Methods A total of 480 patients at ASA grade Ⅰ-Ⅲ to be operated in the lower abdomen, perineum and lower limbs under CSEA from March to December 2009 were randomly divided into four groups: midazolam group (M group), propofol group Ⅰ (PA group), propofol group Ⅱ (PB group), and propofol group Ⅲ (PC group), with 120 patients in each group. All four groups of patients underwent CSEA at L2-3 or L3-4 and accepted pinal injection of 12-15 mg of 0.2% hypobaric bupivacaine. After the anesthetic plane was confirmed, patients in M group accepted 0.04-0.06 mg/kg of midazolam; patients in PA group accepted propofol at a loading dose of 0.50 mg/kg followed by continuous infusion at a dose of 2.00 mg/(kg•h); patients in PB group accepted propofol at a loading dose of 0.75 mg/kg followed by continuous infusion at a dose of 3.00 mg/(kg•h); patients in PC group accepted propofol at a loading dose of 1.00 mg/kg followed by continuous infusion at a dose of 3.75 mg/(kg•h). The change of hemodynamics including the mean arterial pressure (MAP) and the heart rate (HR), bispectral index (BIS) values, sedation scores, memory of pictures seen during operation and adverse effects before drug administration (T0), at minute 1 (T1), 3 (T2), 5 (T3), 10 (T4), 30 (T5) and 60 (T6) after drug administration were observed. Results MAP and HR decreased in all the four groups after administration of sedatives, but the changes of measured values were within normal ranges. BIS value and the Observer’s Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (OAA/S) scale decreased in all groups at T3, compared with those at T0 (Plt;0.05). Compared with the other 3 groups, BIS valueand OAA/S scale were significantly lower in PC group at T4, T5 and T6 (Plt;0.05), and the satisfaction rate of sedation and amnesia was much higher. No serious glossocoma, apnea and SpO2 below 90% was observed in all the four groups. Conclusion During the surgery of lower abdomen and lower limbs, application of CSEA combined with propofol at a loading dose of 1.00 mg/kg followed by continuous infusion at a dose of 3.75 mg/(kg•h) can achieve a good sedative effect, with little side effect.
目的：探讨脑电双频指数(BIS)监测在机械通气患者镇静深度评价中的价值。方法：选取15例机械通气患者，静脉注射咪唑安定达到SAS评分3～4分，持续或间断给药维持镇静深度，记录患者每2小时的SAS镇静分级评分及BIS，观察24小时。比较SAS评分与BIS值的相关性。计算BIS的敏感度和特异度，根据ROC曲线和BIS评价镇静深度的敏感度和特异度，寻找最适BIS值。结果:随镇静深度的加深，BIS明显降低，BIS与SAS评分呈正相关(r=0.662，P＜0.05)；SAS评分3～4分(镇静适度)时对应的BIS临界值为69.5～79。结论：BIS监测与SAS评分之间具有良好的相关性，能同步客观地监测机械通气患者的镇静深度，具有一定的临床诊断价值。