【摘要】 目的 探討腰硬聯合麻醉復合丙泊酚恒速輸注清醒鎮靜的可行性、理想的藥物劑量、術中知曉情況以及麻醉質量和效果。 方法 收集2009年3-12月480例美國麻醉醫師協會（ASA）Ⅰ～Ⅲ級擬在腰硬聯合麻醉下行下腹部、會陰部、下肢手術的患者480例，隨機分為咪達唑侖組（M組）、丙泊酚Ⅰ組（PA組）、丙泊酚Ⅱ組（PB組）、丙泊酚Ⅲ組（PC組），每組各120例。四組患者均于腰2-3或腰3-4行腰硬聯合麻醉，蛛網膜下腔注入輕比重0.2 %布比卡因12～15 mg，麻醉平面確切后，M組予以咪達唑侖0.04~0.06 mg/kg，PA組先予以負荷量丙泊酚0.50 mg/kg再以2.00 mg/（kg?h）劑量持續泵注，PB組予以負荷量丙泊酚0.75 mg/kg再以3.00 mg/（kg?h）劑量持續泵注，PC組予以負荷量丙泊酚1.00 mg/kg再以3.75 mg/（kg?h）劑量持續泵注。觀察患者給藥前（T0）、給藥1（T1）、3（T2）、5（T3）、10（T4）、30（T5）、60 min（T6）各時點血流動力學平均動脈血壓（MAP）、心率（HR）的變化、腦電雙頻指數（BIS）值及鎮靜評分、術中所看到的圖片的回憶及不良反應。 結果 各組在給予鎮靜藥后MAP、HR均有所下降，但測量值的變化在正常范圍內；在T3時間點，各組BIS值及鎮靜/警醒OAA/S評分降低，與T0比較，差異有統計學意義（Plt;0.05）；與其他3組比較，在T4、T5、T6時點PC組BIS值與OAA/S評分降低，差異有統計學意義（Plt;0.05），PC組的鎮靜遺忘滿意率高于其他3組；各組間未見發生嚴重的舌后墜、呼吸暫停和血氧飽和度（SpO2）lt;90%。 結論 在下腹部、下肢手術中，應用腰硬聯合麻醉復合1.00 mg/kg負荷量的丙泊酚繼而以3.75 mg/（kg?h）劑量持續泵注，可取得良好的鎮靜效果，不良反應小。【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.
ObjectiveTo study the feasibility of using propofol and remifentanil for reduction of shoulder joint dislocation in the conscious elderly patients, and compare its efficacy with brachial plexus block anesthesia.
MethodsSeventy elderly patients (American Sociaty of Anesthesiologist physical statusⅠ-Ⅱ) who underwent shoulder dislocation reduction in our hospital between August 2011 and December 2013 were randomly divided into two groups, each group having 35 cases. Patients in group A received brachial plexus nerve block anesthesia downlink gimmick reset, while patients in group B received the use of remifentanil-propofol and lidocaine compound liquid intravenous drop infusion for anesthesia downlink manipulative reduction. After successful anesthesia, two groups of patients were treated with traction and foot pedal method (Hippocrates) to reset. We observed the two groups of patients in the process of reduction, and recorded their hemodynamic changes, reset time, discharge time, postoperative satisfaction, intra-operative memory, breathing forgotten (breathing interval was longer than 15 seconds) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, and then comparison was made between the two groups.
ResultsPatients in both the two groups successfully completed manipulative reduction. Compared with group A, patients in group B had more stable hemodynamic indexes during the process of reduction, shorter reduction time, better anesthesia effect and higher postoperative satisfaction degree, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in terms of time of leaving the operation room between the two groups (P>0.05). VAS score was higher in group A than that in group B (P<0.05). The occurrence of intra-operative memory amnesia and breathing forgotten phenomenon existed in part of the patients after operation in group B, but they did not occur in patients in group A.
ConclusionRemifentanyl propofol-lidocaine compound fluid can be safely used in conscious elderly patients for shoulder joint dislocation reconstructive surgery, and it functions quickly with complete analgesia and stable hemodynamic indexes.
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.
【摘要】 目的 比較瑞芬太尼、丙泊酚、艾司洛爾用于支撐喉鏡手術氣管插管時患者的心血管反應。 方法 選取2009年1-3月就診的60例擬于全身麻醉下行擇期支撐喉鏡下聲帶息肉切除術的患者，隨機分為丙泊酚組、艾司洛爾組和瑞芬太尼組，每組20例。麻醉誘導采用咪達唑侖、芬太尼和丙泊酚，患者意識消失后給予琥珀膽堿。1 min后各組分別給予丙泊酚2 mg/kg、艾司洛爾1 mg/kg和瑞芬太尼1 μg/kg。30 s后進行氣管插管。記錄患者誘導前及插管前、插管后1、3、5 min的心率和血壓水平。 結果 各組插管前的收縮壓和心率較誘導前明顯降低，插管后1、3 min的收縮壓和心率較插管前升高（Plt;0.05)。丙泊酚組和艾司洛爾組插管后的收縮壓較瑞芬太尼組升高（Plt;0.05)。丙泊酚組插管后心率較瑞芬太尼組增加（Plt;0.05)。 結論 對行支撐喉鏡手術的患者，氣管插管前30 s給予1 μg/kg瑞芬太尼較2 mg/kg丙泊酚和1 mg/kg艾司洛爾能更有效地減輕氣管插管時的血流動力學反應。【Abstract】 Objective To assess the different effects of remifentanil, propofol, and esmolol on hemodynamic responses during intubation in CO2 laser endolaryngeal microsurgery (CO2-LELM). Methods A total of 60 patients aged from 18 to 65 years, admitted from January to March 2009 and scheduled to undergo elective CO2-LELM under general anesthesia for treatment of vocal cord polyp were randomly assigned to a propofol group, an esmolol group, and a remifentanil group. Anesthesia was induced with midazolam (0.015-0.02 mg/kg), fentanyl (1 μg/kg), and propofol (1 mg/kg). After the patients became unconscious, succinylcholine (1 mg/kg) was given one minute later. Then the patients in the three groups received propofol (2 mg/kg), esmolol (1 mg/kg), and remifentanil (1 μg/kg), respectively. Intubation was performed 30 secconds later. Heart rate (HR) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were measured noninvasively before general anesthesia induction (baseline, Tb), just before intubation(Ti), and one, three, and five minutes after intubation (T1, T3, T5). Results The demographic data including age, sex and body weight were comparable in the three groups. Tracheal intubation caused significant increases in SBP and HR in all groups compared with Ti (Plt;0.05). After intubation, SBP in the propofol group and the esmolol group were significantly higher than that in remifentanil group (Plt;0.05), and HR in the propofol group was significantly higher than that in the remifentanil group (Plt;0.05). Conclusion In patients with CO2-LELM, remifentanil (1 μg/kg) administrated 30 seconds before intubation is maximal effective compared with propofol (2 mg/kg) or esmolol (1 mg/kg) in attenuating the hemodynamic responses to oraltracheal intubation.
摘要:目的:分析與比較七氟醚吸入麻醉和丙泊酚靜脈復合麻醉應用于三聚氰胺致嬰幼兒輸尿管結石手術的麻醉效果。方法:60例輸尿管結石患兒隨機分為七氟醚(Sev)組(n=30)和丙泊酚(Pro)組(n=30)。觀察并記錄誘導時間、氣管內插管時間、蘇醒時間、拔除氣管插管時間、PACU滯留時間。記錄麻醉誘導和蘇醒期的不良反應。另外記錄兩組病人誘導前、插管前、插管后3 min、5 min、15 min、30 min時點的血壓、心率、脈搏血氧飽和度(SPO2)。結果:七氟醚組誘導時間(63.2±6.9)s長于丙泊酚組(38.2±12.7)s,七氟醚組拔除氣管插管時間(11.9±4.7)min短于丙泊酚組(15.6±8.2)min,兩組相比有統計學意義(Plt;0.05)。七氟醚組躁動發生率53.3%顯著高于丙泊酚組13.3%(Plt;0.01)。七氟醚組在插管前、插管后各時點的血壓、心率與誘導前相比,差異無統計學意義(Pgt;0.05),丙泊酚組插管前、插管后3 min、5 min與誘導前相比血壓、心率顯著降低(Plt;0.05),與同時間點七氟醚組相比血壓顯著降低(Plt;0.05)。結論:兩種麻醉方法均可安全有效用于嬰幼兒輸尿管結石手術,七氟醚組血流動力學更平穩,但躁動發生率較高。Abstract: Objective: To analyze and compare sevoflurane with propofol for anesthesia in infants with Melamineinduced ureteral stone surgery. Methods: Sixty infants who were to undergo Melamineinduced ureteral stone surgery were randomly divided into sevoflurane (Sev) group (n=30) and propofol (Pro) group (n=30). Observe and record the induction of anesthesia time, intubation time, awakening time, time to extubation, time to stay at PACU. Record adverse effects during induction of anesthesia and the awake period. In addition, recorded BP, HR, SPO2 of two groups before induction and intubation, after 3min、5min、15min、30min after intubation. Results: Induction time ［（63.2 ± 6.9） s］ in sevoflurane group was longer than propofol group ［(38.2±12.7） s］,but extubation time ［（11.9 ± 4.7） min］ was shorter than propofol group ［(15.6 ± 8.2） min］, there was significantly different between two groups (Plt;0.05). The incidence of restlessness in sevoflurane group 53.3% was significantly higher than propofol group 13.3% (Plt;001). In sevoflurane group the BP, HR before intubation compare with after intubation has no significant difference (Pgt;0.05). Compared with before induction,the BP, HR before induction, after intubation 3 min, 5 min, decreased significantly (Plt;0.05) in propofol group.when compared the same point with sevoflurane group, blood pressure decreased significantly (Plt;0.05). Conclusion: Both propofol and sevoflurane can be used effectively and safely for anesthesia of ureteral calculi stone surgery in pediatric. The hemodynamics is more stable but restlessness is more common in sevoflurane group.
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.
