目的:比较瑞芬太尼联合异丙酚或依托咪酯全麻在腹腔镜妇科手术中的临床效果。方法:择期腹腔镜妇科手术80例,随机分成瑞芬太尼异丙酚组(RP组)和瑞芬太尼依托咪酯组(RE组),各40例。两组全麻诱导用药相同,维持麻醉RP组采用瑞芬太尼联合异丙酚、RE组采用瑞芬太尼联合依托咪酯。记录基础值、诱导后、插管后1 min、3 min、气腹时、气腹后10、20、30、40 min的动脉收缩压(SBP)、舒张压(DBP)、心率(HR);记录停药至自主呼吸恢复、睁眼、拔除气管导管、恢复定向能力的时间;记录清醒即刻及清醒后1、2、4、8、12、16、20、24 h患者疼痛程度,采用VAS评分;记录24 h内不良反应发生情况。 结果: 两组SBP、DBP均在诱导后明显低于基础值(Plt;001), 插管后恢复,气腹开始后趋于平稳;两组HR均在诱导后减慢(Plt;001),插管后及气腹开始时恢复。RP组自主呼吸恢复、呼之能睁眼、拔除气管导管及恢复定向能力的时间均明显短于RE组(Plt;001)。麻醉清醒即刻、清醒后1、2、4、8 h VAS评分RE组明显低于RP组(Plt;005),12、16、20、24 h VAS评分两组比较无显著性差异(Pgt;005)。术后发生恶心呕吐患者数RP组明显减少(Plt;005)。 结论:全麻行腹腔镜妇科手术时,瑞芬太尼联合异丙酚或依托咪酯都能缓解气腹及手术引起的血流动力学变化,瑞芬太尼联合异丙酚术后苏醒快且能明显降低术后恶心呕吐的发生率,但术后疼痛较为严重。
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:观察舒芬太尼复合异丙酚自控镇静镇痛在结肠镜检查中的效果及不良反应,从而探讨该方法的安全性和有效性。方法:行无痛纤维结肠镜检查的患者60例,随机分为两组:自控镇痛/镇静组和静脉复合全麻醉组,每组30例。自控镇痛/镇静组首先缓慢静脉注射舒芬太尼0.12 μg/kg,随之接电子自控镇痛泵,负荷量设定为0.5 mg/kg,以4 mg/kg·h的速度持续泵入异丙酚(10 mg/mL),术中按压1次自控手柄可快速推注异丙酚1 mL。静脉复合全麻醉组首先静脉缓慢推注芬太尼1 μg/kg,咪唑安定0.02 mg/kg, 2 min后缓慢推注异丙酚0.8～1 mg/kg。术中间断给予异丙酚以维持听觉诱发电位指数(AAI)于30～40之间。结果:静脉复合全麻醉组的MAP较检查前明显下降且较自控镇痛/镇静组下降更为明显且具有统计学意义(Plt;0.05)。自控镇痛/镇静组的呼吸频率较静脉复合全麻醉组下降明显且在T3时间点具有统计学意义(Plt;0.05)。自控镇痛/镇静组患者OAA/S评分达5分和Aldrete评分达9分的时间均较静脉复合全麻醉组明显缩短(1.4±1.3 VS 3.9±1.7和 2.9±1.7 VS 5.7±1.7)(Plt;0.05)。两组的内镜医师和患者满意度评分无统计学差异(P＞0.05)。结论:自控镇静镇痛能够比传统的静脉全身麻醉提供更良好的循环系统稳定性,更迅速的麻醉后恢复,是结肠镜检查镇静镇痛的理想和安全方法。
ObjectiveTo systematically review the safety of propofol versus sevoflurane for pediatric surgery. MethodsEMbase, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, CSCD, CNKI, WanFang Data were searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about propofol versus sevoflurane for pediatric surgery from inception to January 2015. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then metaanalysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsFifteen RCTs involving 1 065 children were included finally. Meta-analysis results showed that, compared with the sevoflurane group, the propofol group could reduce the incidence of emergence agitation (OR=0.23, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.34, P<0.000 01) and the incidence of postoperative vomiting (OR=0.32, 95%CI 0.20 to 0.51, P<0.000 01). There were no significant differences between the two groups in extubation time (MD=0.98, 95%CI -0.26 to 2.21, P=0.12), eye-opening time (MD=3.32, 95%CI -2.65 to 9.29, P=0.28) and postoperative analgesic requirements (OR=0.60, 95%CI 0.30 to 1.23, P=0.16). ConclusionIn reducing the incidence of emergence agitation and postoperative vomiting, propofol is superior to sevoflurane, so propofol is safer than sevoflurane for children's surgery.
目的 探讨改良电休克治疗（MECT）中影响脑电抽搐时间的因素。 方法 回顾性分析2011年10月－2011年12月经MECT的111例精神障碍患者的临床资料，利用Pearson相关分析方法进行统计，分析异丙酚用量、性别、设定电量、动态阻抗等因素对脑电抽搐时间的影响。 结果 男性异丙酚用量平均值大于女性。女性的年龄、能量设定百分比、静态阻抗、动态阻抗均大于男性。与抽搐发作时间相关的因素是年龄、设定能量百分比。异丙酚剂量与脑电抽搐时间无相关。以脑电抽搐时间≥25 s为判定标准，男性的反应率高于女性。 结论 行MECT时，需考虑患者年龄对发作时间的影响，异丙酚可安全用于MECT中。
目的:讨论胃镜检查中更加舒适的一种镇静镇痛方法。方法:芬太尼-异丙酚为Ⅰ组,咪唑安定-异丙酚组为Ⅱ组。观察记录各组术中的反应、胃镜操作时间、麻醉药物起效时间、苏醒时间和清醒时间,检查前中后BP、HR和SpO2的变化,及术后问卷调查。结果:Ⅰ组药物的起效快,受检者苏醒及清醒时间短,术中不适反应少,与Ⅱ组比较有统计学意义(Plt;0.01)。结论:镇静无痛苦胃镜检查中芬太尼-异丙酚联合用药更舒适。
Objective To assess the safety and efficacy of sufentanil combined with propofol for painless fiberbronchoscopy. Methods A total of 120 patients undergoing fiberbronchoscopy were divided into two groups according to their admission sequence: group S (sufentanil + propofol, n=60) and group F (fentanil + propofol, n=60). Parameters including heart rate (HR), systol ic blood pressure (SBP), diastol ic blood pressure (DBP), saturation of blood oxygen (SPO2), dose of propofol, duration of the procedure, waking time and score of Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) scale were recorded. Results The HR increased significantly 3 minutes after drug administration in both groups (Plt;0.05). The SPO2 decreased significantly 3 minutes after drug administration in both groups (Plt;0.05). The average dose of propofol and OAA/a score were similar between the two groups (Pgt;0.05). The waking time was significantly shorter in group S than in group F (Plt;0.05). Conclusion Sufentanil combined with propofol could offer a good sedative/analgesic effect during painless fiberbronchoscopy.
目的 探究静脉利多卡因联合异丙酚在无痛胃镜麻醉应用中的可行性、安全性和有效性。 方法 纳入2012年4月－5月行无痛胃镜检查的患者102例，随机分为两组：利多卡因组（L组）和生理盐水组（S组）。L组于麻醉诱导前缓慢静注2%利多卡因2 mg/kg，S组给予相同容量的生理盐水。比较两组间的异丙酚诱导剂量、追加剂量和总量，以及检查中呛咳反应、体动的发生率，麻醉时间，不良事件和不良反应发生率，麻醉医生和患者满意度是否有差异。 结果 L组较S组异丙酚诱导剂量减少约0.17 mg/kg，差异有统计学意义（P=0.03）；余指标差异均无统计学意义。 结论 将静脉利多卡因用于无痛胃镜麻醉，虽能减少异丙酚诱导剂量，但减少程度并不明显；不能改善诱导前后血流动力学的剧烈波动，也未能缩短总的麻醉时间；在抑制术中呛咳反应、体动方面也未见明显优势。无论是从安全性还是经济学方面考虑，我们都不推荐将静脉利多卡因联合异丙酚麻醉的方案用于无痛胃镜检查。
Objective To investigate the effectiveness of pretreatment with mixture of lidocaine and flurbiprofen axetil in reducing injection pain of propofol. Methods One hundred and sixty ASI I–II patients undergoing general anaesthesia were randomly allocated into four groups (40 cases in each group): the control group, the lidocaine (Lc) group, the flurbiprofen axetil (FA) group and the mixture of lidocaine and flurbiprofen axetil (hereafter termed as “mixture”) group. After the occlusion of venous drainage, patients were pretreated with 7 mL of 0.9% saline in the control group, 5 mL (50 mg) of flurbiprofen axetil and 2 mL of 0.9% saline in the FA group, 2 mL (40 mg) of 2% lidocaine and 5 mL of 0.9% saline in the Lc group, and 5 mL (50 mg) of flurbiprofen axetil and 2 mL (40 mg) of 2% lidocaine in the mixture group, respectively. The occlusion was released 2 min later and then 0.5 mg/kg propofol was injected into the vein within 5 s. During injecting propofol, the patients were asked by another anesthetist to assess and record their pain through using VSR. Results No significant differences in the demographic characteristics were found among the four groups. In comparison with the control group, the incidence rates of propofol injection pain were obviously lower in the mixture group, the FA group and the Lc group (Plt;0.05); there was a significant reduction in the incidence rate of pain in the mixture group compared with the other three groups. The median pain score was significantly lower in the mixture group and the Lc group than that in the control group. During the 24 hour follow-up after operation, neither the adverse events such as red-swelling in injection site, phlebitis or drug eruption, nor the gastrointestinal stimulating signs were found. Conclusion The mixture of flurbiprofen axetil and lidocaine is found to be more effective in reducing injection pain of propofol.