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。
目的 观察酒石酸布托啡诺与芬太尼合用于术后静脉自控镇痛（PCIA）的效果及最佳混合比例。 方法 2010年8月－2011年1月100例妇科手术患者，随机分为5组，每组20例。均全身麻醉术后采用负荷量+持续背景剂量+PCIA方案镇痛。根据不同配方分为F组：芬太尼1 mg+生理盐水至100 mL；B组：酒石酸布托啡诺10 mg+生理盐水至100 mL；BFⅠ组：芬太尼0.6 mg+酒石酸布托啡诺3 mg+生理盐水至90 mL；BFⅡ组：芬太尼0.5 mg+酒石酸布托啡诺5 mg+生理盐水至100 mL；BFⅢ组：芬太尼0.3 mg+酒石酸布托啡诺6 mg+生理盐水至90 mL。观察术后各时点视觉模拟评分（VAS）及镇静评分，患者满意度以及不良反应情况。 结果 术后早期BFⅢ组和B组VAS评分大于F组；镇静评分B组大于F组；B组满意度优良率小于其余各组；恶心呕吐发生率F组高于BFⅠ组及BFⅡ组。 结论 酒石酸布托啡诺和芬太尼合用于PCIA，镇痛效果确切，不良反应发生率低。推荐配比：BFⅠ组和BFⅡ组。
Objective To investigate clinical application and safety evaluation of sedative demulcent anesthesia in therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).Methods Totally 1660 patients underwent ERCP at the First Hospital of Lanzhou University were prospectively divided into two groups: venous sedative demulcent group (n=800, using sufentanil and midazolam and propofol continuing infusion) and conventional sedative demulcent group (n=860, using common medicine). The heart rate (HR), respiration (R), blood pressure (BP) and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) of pre-anesthesia, post-anesthesia, during operation and after analepsia in every group were detected. The narcotism was evaluated by Ramsaymin grading method and the related adverse reactions such as cough, restlessness, harmful memory, and abdominal pain after operation were recorded. Results Compared with conventional sedative demulcent group, vital signs of patients in venous sedative demulcent group were more stable. For postoperative adverse reactions, abdominal pain, abdominal distension and nausea and vomiting were respectively 4.4%(35/800), 2.6%(21/800) and 3.6%(29/800) in venous sedative demulcent group, which were respectively higher of the incidence of 36.3%(312/860), 49.0%(421/860) and 53.0%(456/860) in conventional sedative demulcent group (P＜0.01). The postoperative satisfaction and adverse reactions recall between venous sedative demulcent group and conventional sedative demulcent group was respectively significant different (96.9% vs. 2.9%, 4.8% vs. 97.9%, P＜0.01). Conclusion Sufentanil and midazolam and propofol continuing infusion have good effect of sedative demulcent anesthesia, which can be widely used.
ObjectiveTo observe the effect of dexmedetomidine combined with etomidate on the clinical safety and the tracheal extubation response after general anesthesⅠa in elderly patient undergoing thyroidectomy. MethodsFifty patients (aged between 65 and 75 years, ASAⅠor Ⅱ) scheduled for thyroid surgery between July 2012 and January 2013 were randomly divided into two groups:dexmedetomidine group (group D) and control group (group C) with 25 patients in each group. Group D received dexmedetomidine of 0.5 μg/(kg·h) through intravenous infusion after anesthesia induction, and the intravenous infusion was stopped five minutes before the end of surgery. Normal saline was infused at the same volume in group C at the same time. Patients were induced with etomidate at 0.2 mg/kg for anesthesia, and etomidate and remifentanil were used for the anesthesia maintenance during the operation. Heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and bispectral index (BIS) were recorded 5 (T1), 15 (T2) and 30 (T3) minutes after the beginning of the operation, and 15 (T4) and 5 (T5) minutes before the end of the operation. Moreover, the time of eye opening, time of extubation, the number of patients with restlessness and etomidate requirement were recorded. ResultsCompared with group C, HR and MAP at the time points of T2 and T5 in group D did not obviously change, but the number of restlessness patients in group D was significantly less than in group C (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in time of eye opening and time of extubation between the two groups (P>0.05). Etomidate requirement in group D was[(8.6±2.1) μg/(kg·min)], which was significantly lower than that in group C[(14.4±3.4) μg/(kg·min)] (P<0.05). ConclusionDexmedetomidine combined with etomidate is efficient and safe for elderly patients undergoing thyroidectomy, and this method can effectively reduce cardiovascular responses to tracheal extubation, decrease the incidence of postoperative restlessness, and reduce the requirement of etomidate during the operation.
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.
目的 评价重症急性左心衰竭患者机械通气时采用咪达唑仑与吗啡联合持续镇静的效果。 方法 选择2007年4月－2010年4月在重症医学科（ICU）进行有创机械通气的重症急性左心衰竭患者86例，随机均分为咪达唑仑组（A组）、咪达唑仑联合吗啡组（B组）。采用Ramsay镇静评分，使每例患者镇静水平达RamsayⅢ～Ⅳ级。观察起效时间、镇静时间、停药后苏醒时间和停药后拔管时间；监测镇静12 h后的血气分析及血流动力学参数的变化。 结果 B组起效时间、镇静时间、停药后苏醒时间和停药后拔管时间明显短于A组（P＜0.05）。且镇静12 h后B组血气分析及血流动力学较A组明显改善（P＜0.05）。 结论 重症急性左心衰竭患者机械通气时使用咪达唑仑联合吗啡镇静能达到满意镇静效果，同时改善重症急性左心衰竭患者的低氧血症和高碳酸血症。