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.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the application of dexmedetomidine for moderate sedation in patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasonography.MethodsPatients who were planned to undergo endoscopic ultrasonography in West China Hospital of Sichuan University from February to June 2019 were randomly divided into dexmedetomidine group (trial group) and propofol group (control group). The basic conditions, success rate of endoscopic ultrasound diagnosis and treatment, sedation-related adverse events, implementation of airway management, postoperative comfort evaluation and endoscopic physician satisfaction score of the two groups were compared.ResultsA total of 120 patients were eventually enrolled, 60 in each group. There was no significant difference in the basic conditions of the two groups (P>0.05). The success rate of endoscopic ultrasound diagnosis and treatment in two groups were 100%. There was no significant difference in the incidence of bucking, apnea and bradycardia between the two groups (P>0.05). The incidence of hypotension (15.0% vs. 31.7%), hypoxemia (6.7% vs.20.0%) in the trial group was lower than those in the control group, the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). The proportion of patients in the trial group who performed airway management was lower than that in the control group (1.7% vs. 28.3%), and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative pain score, the first time to get out of bed and postoperative 15-item quality of recovery questionnaire score between the two groups (P>0.05). The incidence of nausea and vomiting at 6 hours after operation (48.3% vs. 3.3%) and 24 hours after operation (10.0% vs. 0.0%) and the time required for recovery of gastrointestinal function ［(201.4±178.4) vs. (148.5±75.7) min］ in the trial group were higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). The median (the lower and upper quartile) of comfort score of patients and satisfaction score of endoscopic physicians were 8 (6, 10) and 8 (7, 9) in the trial group, respectively, and were 10 (9, 10) and 9 (8, 10) in the control group, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05).ConclusionModerate sedation with dexmedetomidine could provide good sedative and analgesic effects in endoscopic ultrasonography. It has little effect on respiration and blood pressure, but the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting were higher than deep sedation with propofol. And patient comfort and endoscopic physician satisfaction also need to be improved.
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.
ObjectiveTo know the fundamental status of painless digestive endoscopy in China. MethodsA 23-item survey including multiple choices and fill-in-the-blank questions on 3 pages was performed on anesthesiologists in China excluding Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong on www.xqnmz.com and www.dxy.cn/bbs from November 1 to December 31, 2013, among which 5 questions were on personal details, 9 on hospital and department, and 9 on clinic details. The results about the basic facts, risk factors of anesthesia and drug use and monitoring of painless digestive endoscopy in China were analyzed. ResultsA total of 726 questionnaires were collected, among which 667 (91.87%) were considered valid. Interviewed hospitals included hospitals from 31 provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions excluding Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong. Thirty questionnaires were from the first-grade hospitals (4.5%), 292 from the second-grade (43.78%), and 345 from the third-grade (51.72%). And 69.12% of the questionnaires showed these hospitals could only carry out painless gastroscopy and/or colonoscopy, while 80.81% showed the number of the mean painless endoscopy cases was 0-30 per day; 47.23% of the respondents working in digestive endoscopy center had to complete the anesthesia procedure alone, and 35.83% of the respondents illustrated their digestive endoscopy centers had established the post anesthesia care unit; 62.97% were equipped with anesthesia apparatus or ventilator; 89.96% were equipped with tracheal intubation tool; and 21.44% were equipped with defibrillator. Among them, 25.79% did not prepare rescue medicines regularly in digestive endoscopy center. Propofol was the most frequently used anesthetic, and composited fentanyl was at the highest use rate for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Respondents who used electrocardiogram, non-invasive blood pressure and pulse oxygen saturation the least to monitor during painless gastroscopy and colonoscopy took up 43.48% and 46.08% respectively. ConclusionPainless digestive endoscopy needs further development and standardization with the regulation of related guidelines and standardized residents training.
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.
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.
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。