【摘要】 目的 確定在不同濃度七氟醚復合瑞芬太尼誘導無肌松氣管插管時瑞芬太尼的半數有效量（ED50）。 方法 2009年7月-2009年11月擇期手術患者60例，ASA I~II，年齡20~59歲，按照入室的順序隨機分為Ⅰ組（2%七氟醚組）和Ⅱ組（3%七氟醚組），預沖8%七氟醚誘導，眼瞼反射消失后，調節七氟醚呼氣末濃度分別維持在2%或3%，同時按照序貫法注入瑞芬太尼，瑞芬太尼注射90 s后氣管插管。記錄麻醉誘導前、患者意識消失時、插管前1 min、插管后1 min及插管后3 min心率、平均動脈壓的變化。 結果 2%、3%的七氟醚復合瑞芬太尼誘導氣管插管時瑞芬太尼的半數有效量（ED50）及其相對應的95%可信區間分別為0.585 μg/kg及0.533～0.626 μg/kg和0.492 μg/kg及0.451～0.572 μg/kg。 結論 2%、3%的七氟醚復合瑞芬太尼誘導氣管插管時瑞芬太尼的半數有效量及其相對應的95%可信區間分別為0.585 μg/kg及0.533～0.626 μg/kg和0.492 μg/kg及0.451～0.572 μg/kg。【Abstract】 Objective To determine the half effective dose (ED50) of remifentanil dose for tracheal intubation without neuromuscular relaxant in adult when combined with different concentration of sevoflurane. Methods Sixty ASA Ⅰ to Ⅱ adult aged 20 to 59 years old, scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled in this study between July 2009 to November 2009. All patients were ranged randomly into Group Ⅰ (2% sevoflurane) and Group Ⅱ (3% sevoflurane).Anesthesia was induced with 8% sevoflurane in 100% oxygenat at 6 L/min.After the loss of eyelash reflex, remifentanil was injected over 30 s, end-tidal sevoflurane concentration 2% or 3% was maitained. The dose of remifentanil was determined by up-and-down method. In 90 s after the end of bolus administration of remifentanil, the trachea was intubated. Mean blood pressure and heart rate were recorded at anaesthetic induction, the loss of eyelash reflex, before, in 1 min and 3 min after intubation. Results ED50 values (95% confidence intervals)of remifentanil for tracheal intubation during 2% and 3% sevoflurane induction without neuromuscular relaxant were 0.585 μg/kg and 0.533 - 0.626 μg/kg, and 0.492 μg/kg and 0.451 - 0.572 μg/kg, respectively. Conclusion ED50 values (95% confidence intervals)of remifentanil for tracheal intubation 2% and 3% sevoflurane induction without neuromuscular relaxant are 0.585 μg/kg (0.533 - 0.626 μg/kg) and 0.492 μg/kg (0.451 - 0.572 μg/kg), respectively.
Objective To systematically review the clinical effectiveness and safety of sufentanil-propofol versus remifentanil-propofol during total intravenous anesthesia for neurosurgery. Methods Databases including The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2013), the database of the Cochrane Anesthesia Group, MEDLINE, EMbase, PubMed, Ovid, Springer, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were electronically searched from inception to May 2013 for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of sufentanil-propofol versus remifentanil-propofol during total intravenous anesthesia for neurosurgery. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. Results Thirteen trials involving 647 patients were finally included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: a) for hemodynamic changes, MAP decreased in the remifentanil-propofol group after induction and decreased 5 minutes after intubation, but no significant difference was found between the two groups; the two groups were alike in MAP changes during craniotomy and extubation, and in HR changes after induction, 5 minutes after intubation, during craniotomy and extubation, with no significant difference. b) The result of intra-operative wake-up test showed that, there was no significant difference in the sedative effect and the time of awaking between the two groups. c) For emergence time and extubation time, compared with the sufentanil-propofol group, emergence time and extubation time were significantly shorter than those in the remifentanil-propofol group. d) For side effects, there was no significant difference in side effects (such as post-operative nausea, vomiting, respiratory depression, restlessness, chills and hypotension) between the two groups. And e) for post-operative pain, compared with the remifentanil-propofol group, post-operative 1-h and 2-h VAS were lower and the number of who need additional analgesic drugs within 24 h after operation was less in the sufentanil-propofol group, with significant differences. Both groups used the similar dosage of propofol with no significant difference. Conclusion Compared with the remifentanil-propofol group, hemodynamics changes in the sufentanil-propofol group is steadier after induction and during intubation. Patients in the sufentanil-propofol group are better in postoperative awakening quality. But they are alike in the incidence of side effects and propofol dosage.
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.
