Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine for postoperative sedation in cardiac patients. Methods Such databases as PubMed, EBSCO, Springer, Ovid, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched electronically from the date of their establishment to May 2012, and other relevant journals and references of the included literature were also searched manually. Two reviewers independently screened the studies in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed methodology quality. Then the meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1software. Results A total of 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1 157 patients were included. The Jadad scores of 7 RCTs were more than 3, and only 1 RCT scored 2. The results of meta-analysis showed that compared with the control group, dexmedetomidine significantly raised peripheral oxygen saturation (RR=0.90, 95%CI 0.31 to 0.49, P=0.003), decreased the incidence of average heart rate (RR=–5.86, 95%CI –7.31 to −4.40, Plt;0.000 01), ventricular tachycardia (RR=0.27, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.88, P=0.03), delirium (RR=0.28, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.48, Plt;0.000 01) and postoperative hyperglycemia (RR=0.57, 95%CI 0.38 to 0.85, P=0.006), and reduced the number of patients who needed vasoactive agents such as epinephrine (RR=0.53, 95%CI 0.29 to 0.96, P=0.04) and β-blocker (RR=0.60, 95%CI 0.38 to 0.94, P=0.03). However, it failed to shorten the time of both ICU stay (RR=−1.24, 95%CI −4.35 to 1.87, P=0.43) and mechanical ventilation (RR=−2.28, 95%CI −5.13 to 0.57, P=0.12), increase mean artery pressure (RR=−2.78, 95%CI −6.89 to 1.34, P=0.19), and well control postoperative nausea, vomiting and atrial-fibrillation. There were no significant differences between the two groups in myocardial infarction, acute cardiac failure, acute kidney failure, and mortality rate. Conclusion For postoperative sedation in cardiac patients, dexmedetomidine can effectively stabilize hemodynamic indexes, and reduce tachycardia, delirium, postoperative hyperglycemia and vasoactive agents. However, it has no marked influence on the prognosis. For the quantity and quality limitation of included studies, this conclusion needs to be proved by performing more high quality and large sample RCTs.
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。
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 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 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。
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。
【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.
【摘要】 目的 观察丙泊酚在重症监护室（ICU） 外科术后对患者的镇静效果及作用。 方法 2006年7月-2008年7月，对行外科手术后在ICU观察室采用丙泊酚镇静的45例患者的镇静效果、停药苏醒时间及给药前后呼吸、循环参数的变化进行观察，并与治疗前进行比较。 结果 丙泊酚镇静起效快，镇静治疗后大多数患者开始血压有所下降（Plt;0.05）但不久恢复正常，所有患者心率、呼吸频率、血氧饱和度无明显变化（Pgt;0.05），停药后苏醒快。 结论 丙泊酚是外科术后患者较理想的镇静剂，但应根据患者情况调整给药速度、剂量及时间。 【Abstract】 Objective To observe the sedative effect of propofol on the patients after surgical operations in intensive care unit (ICU). Methods Forty-five patients underwent the injection with propofol after surgical operations in ICU from July 2006 to July 2008. The sedative efficacy, recovery time after the propofol administration, and changes of respiratory, circulate parameter before and after medication were observed, which were compared with those before the treatment. Results The sedative reactive time of propofol was short. Most of the patients had decreased blood pressure after injection with propofol (Plt;0.05) but recovered soon. The heart rate, respiratory rate, and pulse oxygen saturation did not significantly changed (Pgt;0.05). The recovery time was short after propofol administration was stopped. Conclusion Propofol is an effective sedative for the patients after surgical operations in ICU, but the medicated speed, amount and time according to state of the patients should be adjusted.
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。
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。