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 carry out a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in comparison with midazolam as preoperative drug. Methods All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about dexmedetomidine as preoperative drug compared with midazolam were identified. Meta analysis was performed by using the statistical software RevMan 4.2.10 on the basis of strict quality evaluation. Results Thirteen RCTs involving 806 patients were included. The results of meta analyses showed that dexmedetomidine was better than midazolam in decreasing perioperative blood pressure and heart rate, decreasing dosage of anesthetics, shortening of emergence time, and decreasing the occurrence of agitation, while the occurrence of perioperative hypotention and bradycardia of dexmedetomidine was much more than midazolam. The statistical outcomes showed that there were no differences between the two drugs in the satisfactory score, postoperative sedation score, the number of people needing analgesia, and occurrence of nausea and vomitting. Conclusion Significant advantages in favour of dexmedetomidine as preoperative drug are observed. Dexmedetomidine is safe except for more incidences of hypotension and bradycardia.
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.
Objective To study the sedative effects and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolamfor acute exacerbate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ( AECOPD) underwentmechanical ventilation.Methods 68 AECOPD patients underwentmechanical ventilation were enrolled and randomly divided into adexmedetomidine group ( n =34) and a midazolam group ( n = 34) by acute physiology and chronic healthevaluation Ⅱ ( APACHEⅡ) score. The patients in the dexmedetomidine group were given a loading dose( 1 μg/kg) and then maintained with 0. 2-0. 8 mg·kg- 1 ·h- 1 . The patients in the midazolam group weregiven a loading dose ( 0. 05 mg/kg) and then maintained with 0. 06-0. 2 mg· kg- 1 · h- 1 . Sedation levelwas assessed by Ramsay score and maintained a Ramsay score of 3-4. The sedation onset time, disablesedatives wake time, duration of mechanical ventilation, extubation success rate, ICU length of stay, and 28days mortality after admission to the ICU were compared between two groups. And calmer respiratorydepression, circulatory and delirium adverse reactions incidence were also compared. Results Thedifferences in patients’age, gender, and APACHEⅡ score between two groups were not significant ( P gt;0. 05) . Compared with the midazolam group, the dexmedetomidine group had more rapid onset of sedation[ ( 49. 80 ±8. 20) s vs. ( 107. 55 ±19. 65) s, P lt;0. 01] , shorter wake-up time [ ( 18. 90 ±2. 30) min vs. ( 40. 82 ±19. 85) min, P lt;0. 01] , shorter duration of mechanical ventilation [ ( 4. 9 ±1. 6) d vs. ( 7. 8 ±2. 5) d,P lt;0. 01] , higher successful extubation rate ( 79. 41% vs. 58. 82% , P lt;0. 01) , and shorter ICUlength of stay[ ( 6. 5 ±2. 5) d vs. ( 9. 6 ±3. 4) d, P lt;0. 05] . Dexmedetomidine had lower respiratory depression rate, littleeffects on hemodynamics, lower occurrence and short duration of delirium. Conclusion It is highlyrecommended that dexmedetomidine be used for sedation in AECOPD patients with mechanical ventilation.
Objective To evaluate the rescue intubation induced by ketamine and midazolam in patients with acute respiratory failure.Methods 81 patients with acute respiratory failure admitted between June 2010 and June 2012 were recruited in the study. They were randomly divided to a MF group to receive 0. 05 mg/kg of midazolam + 1 to 2 μg/kg of fentanyl ( n =41) , and aMK group to received 0. 05 mg/kg of midazolam + 0. 5 to 1 mg/kg of ketamine ( n =40) for rescue intubation. The APACHEⅡ score on initial24 hours after admission in ICU, length of ICU stay, and 28-day mortality were recorded. The differences in arterial blood pressure, heart rate, respiration rate, and blood oxygen saturation before intubation and 10 minutes after intubation were compared. Incidences of hypotension and other adverse events and difficult intubation were also recorded.Results The midazolamdose in the MK group was significantly less than that in the MF group ( P lt; 0. 01) . The blood pressure in both groups decreased. The systolic blood pressure dropped most significantly in the MF group ( P lt;0. 05) . The incidence of hypotension was 41. 5% in the MF group, significantly higher than that in the MK group ( 20. 0% , P lt;0. 05) . The incidence of hypotension had no correlation with midazolamdosage ( P gt;0. 05) . There was no significant difference in adverse events except for the arrhythmia between two groups. The length of ICU stay and 28-day mortality were similar in both groups ( P gt; 0. 05) . The incidence of difficult tracheal intubation was nearly 50% in both groups.Conclusions In patients with respiratory failure, rescue intubation induced by ketamine can reduce the dose of midazolam and reduce the incidence of hypotension without more complications. The optimal dose of ketamine in induced tracheal intubation requires further study.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical effects of nebulized lidocaine anesthesia and anesthesia with lidocaine and midazolam in patients with preoperative bronchoscopy. MethodsTotally, 136 inpatients between May 2002 and June 2013 with preoperative bronchoscopy were included in the study. The patients were randomly assigned to experimental group and control group with 68 patients in each. For patients in the experimental group, 8 mL of 2% lidocaine was administered through inhalation anesthesia, followed by 2-3 mg bolus of midazolam, and subsequently 0.5 mg of midazolam was administered every 2 minutes depending on patients' awareness. Patients in the control group accepted lidocaine alone for anesthesia. The clinical efficacy and adverse effects of both the two ways of anesthesia were observed. ResultsThe time of sustained and effective anesthesia was (24.5±2.8) minutes in the experimental group, as compared with (16.8±2.1) minutes in the control group (P<0.01). The average amount of consumption of lidocaine was (12.4±1.3) mL in the experimental group, as compared with (16.8±1.5) mL in the control group (P<0.01). The heart rate at 5 min after operation was (81.5±19.5) beats/min in the experimental group, as compared with (94.6±34.6) beats/min in the control group (P<0.01). The mean pulse oxygen saturation at 5 min after operation was (93.5±3.6)% in the experimental group, as compared with (88.2±13.3)% in the control group (P<0.01). ConclusionCombined application of lidocaine and midazolam before bronchoscopy is simple and feasible for anesthesia, which has higher success rate, lesser side effects and other reactions such as body movement and coughing.
ObjectiveTo explore the efficacy and safety of different sedative and analgesic methods in emergent endotracheal intubations in RICU. Methods110 cases of tracheal intubation in critically ill patients were divided into 5 groups randomly: ① control group(given no sedative or analgesic drug before intubation); ② fentanyl group(given intravenous fentanyl 2 μg/kg before intubation,followed by fentanyl 2 μg·kg-1·h-1 maintenance); ③ dexmedetomidine hydrochloride+fentanyl group(given dexmedetomidine hydrochloride 1 μg/kg+fentanyl 2 μg/kg before intubation,followed by dexmedetomidine hydrochloride 0.5 μg·kg-1·h-1+fentanyl 2 μg·kg-1·h-1 maintenance); ④ midazolam+fentanyl group(given midazolam 0.05 mg/kg+fentanyl 2 μg/kg before intubation,followed by midazolam 0.05 mg·kg-1·h-1+fentanyl 2 μg·kg-1·h-1 maintenance); ⑤ Propofol+fentanyl group(given propofol 1 mg/kg+fentanyl 2 μg/kg before intubation,followed by propofol 0.4 mg·kg-1·h-1+fentanyl 2 μg·kg-1·h-1 maintenance).The mean arterial pressure(MAP),heart rate(HR),respiratory frequency(RR),PaO2/FiO2,Riker sedation score and agitation were monitored before,during and after intubations.The one-time success rate of intubation and severe arrhythmia (sinus bradycardia,frequent ventricular premature,ventricular fibrillation,and cardiac arrest) incidence rate were recorded. ResultsThe one-time success rates of intubations of the propofol+fentanyl group (95.4%) and the midazolam+fentanyl group (90.9%) were higher than that in the dexmedetomidine hydrochloride+fentanyl group (86.4%,P<0.05),while one-time intubation success rate of three groups were higher than that of the fentanyl group (45.4%) and the control group (31.8%,P<0.05).5 minutes after intubation,the PaO2/FiO2 index of 5 groups of patients were higher than those before intubation,but the PaO2/FiO2 index of the control group and the fentanyl group were lower than those in the other three groups(P<0.05).The occurrence of serious arrhythmia rate in the dexmedetomidine hydrochloride+fentanyl group (0%),the midazolam+fentanyl group (9%) and the propofol+fentanyl group (9%) were lower than that in the control group (13.6%) and the fentanyl group (18.2%).The MAP during intubation and 2 minutes after intubation of the propofol+fentanyl group and the midazolam+fentanyl group were lower than that in the other three groups(P<0.05).The proportion of patients with Riker sedation and agitation score≤4 at intubation in the dexmedetomidine hydrochloride+fentanyl group (68.2%) was lower than that in the propofol+fentanyl group(90.9%) and the midazolam+fentanyl group (86.4%,P<0.05),but higher than those in the fentanyl group(22.7%)and the control group(18.2%,P<0.05). ConclusionPropofol,midazolam or dexmedetomidine hydrochloride with fentanyl are all effective and safe methods of sedation and analgesia in emergent endotracheal intubation in RICU.Dexmedetomidine hydrochloride with fentanyl is an ideal sedative relatively with less influence on cardiovascular system and less myocardial oxygen consumption.
ObjectiveTo explore sedation effect of dexmedetomidine alone and its effects on respiration and circulation of complications in transtracheal endoscopic interventional therapy. MethodsFrom April 2012 to May 2014, 60 adult patients who plan to undergo transtracheal endoscopic interventional therapy were recruited in the study. The patients were divided into a midazolam combined with fenanyl citrate intravenous injection group (MF group), and a dexmedetomidine target controlled infusion group (Y group) using the method of random number table, with 30 cases in each group. All patients were given 2% lidocaine 15 mL by ultrasonic atomizing inhalation for local surface anaesthesia preoperatively, and then the patients in MF group received midazolam and fentanyl citrate by slow intravenous injection, the patients in Y group received dexmedetomidine 0.5 g intravenous injection and persistant infusion of dexmedetomidinein dosage of 0.2 μg/h. The basic Ramsay sedation score (T0) was recorded, then the Ramsay sedation scoring was conducted when the bronchoscope entering into the pharyngeal cavity (T1), into the glottis (T2), and into the bronchial (T3), respectively. ResultsThere were no significant differences in restlessness, hypotension, hypertension, or tachycardia incidence rate between two groups (P>0.05). The differences in Ramsay score between two groups was not significant at T0 or T1 time point (P>0.05), but was significant at T2 and T3 time point (P<0.05). Compared with MF group, the incidence of respiratory depression and hypoxemia was significantly lower, and the recovery time was significantly shorter in Y group (P<0.05). All patients in Y group woke up immediately by simple call. While in MF group, 23 patients needed intravenous flumazenil to promote awakening. ConclusionDexmedetomidine alone can provide effective sedation in transtracheal endoscopic interventional therapy with good effect, high safety, and more convenient awakening.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of midazolam in the prevention of etomidate-induced myoclonus. MethodsDatabases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 8, 2015), CBM, WanFang Data, VIP, and CNKI were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about midazolam in the prevention of etomidate-induced myoclonus from inception to August, 2015. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.2 and Stata 12.0 softwares. ResultsA total of 14 RCTs involving 1 274 patients were included. The results of metaanalysis showed that, compared with placebo, pretreatment with midazolam injection could reduce the incidence of myoclonus (RR=0.28, 95%CI 0.19 to 0.42, P<0.000 01). The sub-group analysis based on different doses of midazolam showed that all three different doses of midazolam (0.015 mg/kg, 0.03 mg/kg and 0.05-0.1 mg/kg) could reduce the incidence of myoclonus effectively (all P values <0.05). ConclusionPretreatment with midazolam injection can reduce the incidence of etomidate-induced myoclonus without increasing the risk of recovery latency and over sedation. Due to the limited quality of included studies, the above conclusion needs to be further verified by more high quality studies.
Objective To observe the incidence rate of cardiovascular adverse events and evaluate the safety of dexmedetomidine or midazolan sedation in patients with long-term mechanical ventilation in intensive care unit (ICU). Methods From January 2014 to December 2015, patients admitted to ICU aged ≥18 years with mechanical ventilation time ≥48 hours were randomly divided into dexmetomidine group (group D) and midazolam group (group M). Adverse events such as cardiovascular events during sedation were observed. Results There were 144 cases in group D and 143 cases in group M. Slow heart rate was the prominent manifestation in group D. The incidence of heart rate <50 beats per minute in group D (4.86%) was less than that in group M (6.29%), but there was no statistical difference ( P=0.681). Group D had lower blood pressure (40.28% vs. 72.73%), tachycardia (18.75% vs. 41.96%), arrhythmia (16.67% vs. 34.97%) and 28- day mortality (22.22% vs. 42.66%) than those in group M (P<0.01). No cardiac arrest, sinus arrest, hypertension, hyperglycemia, or hypoglycemia were found in the two groups. Conclusion The long-term sedation of dexmetidine in patients with mechanical ventilation is safe; in cardiovascular adverse events, the 28-day mortality is lower than that of traditional midazolam sedation, and the duration of mechanical ventilation is no longer than that of traditional midazolam sedation, with slightly longer ICU length of stay.