Objective To assess the safety and efficacy of sufentanil combined with propofol for painless fiberbronchoscopy. Methods A total of 120 patients undergoing fiberbronchoscopy were divided into two groups according to their admission sequence: group S (sufentanil + propofol, n=60) and group F (fentanil + propofol, n=60). Parameters including heart rate (HR), systol ic blood pressure (SBP), diastol ic blood pressure (DBP), saturation of blood oxygen (SPO2), dose of propofol, duration of the procedure, waking time and score of Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) scale were recorded. Results The HR increased significantly 3 minutes after drug administration in both groups (Plt;0.05). The SPO2 decreased significantly 3 minutes after drug administration in both groups (Plt;0.05). The average dose of propofol and OAA/a score were similar between the two groups (Pgt;0.05). The waking time was significantly shorter in group S than in group F (Plt;0.05). Conclusion Sufentanil combined with propofol could offer a good sedative/analgesic effect during painless fiberbronchoscopy.
【摘要】 目的 比較舒芬太尼與等效劑量芬太尼在髖關節置換術后患者硬膜外鎮痛的臨床效果。 方法 2006年11月-2008年9月收治的50例硬膜外麻醉下髖關節置換術患者，隨機分為兩組（n=25）。芬太尼組（A組）:芬太尼0.75 mg加0.894%甲磺酸哌卡因20 mL加生理鹽水至100 mL；舒芬太尼組（B組），舒芬太尼75 μg加0.894%甲磺酸哌卡因20 mL加生理鹽水至100 mL硬膜外鎮痛。其中，A組患者于手術結束時，靜脈滴注格拉司瓊3 mg。持續劑量2 mL/h，單次給藥量（PCA）0.5 mL/次，鎖定時間15 min。觀察兩組的鎮痛效果，惡心、嘔吐次數，記錄脈搏血氧飽和度、心率、呼吸的變化。 結果 鎮痛泵開機后，B組各時段鎮靜評分，2分以上者明顯多于A組，鎮痛評分明顯低于A組，有統計學意義（Plt;0.05），兩組術后惡心、嘔吐發生率都較低，組間差異無統計學意義（Pgt;0.05）。兩組4、12、24 h的呼吸頻率和脈搏血氧飽和度差異有統計學意義（Plt;0.05），但48 h的呼吸頻率和脈搏血氧飽和度無統計學意義（Pgt;0.05）。 結論 在等效劑量下，髖關節置換術后患者硬膜外鎮痛，舒芬太尼明顯優于芬太尼。【Abstract】 Objective To compare the clinical effect of epidural analgesia with sufentanil and fentanyl in an equivalent dose after hip replacement. Methods From December 2006 to September 2008, fifty cases of epidural anesthesia after hip replacement were randomly divided into two groups, each group had 25 cases. Group A (fentanyl group): fentanyl mesylate 0.75 mg+0.894% ropivacaine 20 mL+0.9% sodium chloride solution to 100 mL; group B (sufentanil group): sufentanil 75 μg+0.894% ropivacaine mesylate 20 mL+0.9% sodium chloride solution to 100 mL epidural analgesia. Patients in group A received intravenous infusion of granisetron 3 mg at the end of surgery. Continuous dose was 2 mL/h, with the volume of single dose (PCA) 0.5 mL per time and lockout time of 15 minutes. The analgesic effect, nausea, and vomiting frequency were observed, and the pulse oxygen saturation, heart rate, and breathing changes were recorded. Results After boot analgesia, S sedation scores for each phase and pain score in group B were significantly different compared with those in group A (Plt;0.05). Both groups had low incidence of nausea and vomiting, and the difference was not statistically significant (Pgt;0.05). The difference of respiratory rate and pulse oxygen saturation at 4 h, 12 h, 24 h was statistically significant between two groups (Plt;0.05), but at 48 h the difference was not significant (Pgt;0.05). Conclusion In the equivalent dose, epidural analgesia with sufentanil in the patients with hip replacement is superior to fentanyl.
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.
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 觀察依托咪酯乳劑復合舒芬太尼用于全麻下喉罩置入的血流動力學變化。 方法 選擇2009年4月-2010年2月間，46例需全麻手術、適合使用喉罩，美國麻醉醫師協會（ASA）Ⅰ～Ⅱ級，年齡18～60歲的患者，隨機分為兩組:依托咪酯乳劑組（E組）23 例，靜脈推注咪達唑侖0.05 mg/kg，依托咪酯乳劑0.3 mg/kg；依托咪酯乳劑+舒芬太尼組（ES組）23 例，靜脈推注咪達唑侖0.05 mg/kg，依托咪酯乳劑0.15 mg/kg，加舒芬太尼0.5 mg/kg，誘導后置入喉罩，記錄患者誘導前、用藥后1 min、喉罩置入后1 min的心率（HR）、平均動脈壓（MAP）以及評估喉罩置入條件的6項指標（張口困難分級、置入喉罩困難分級、舌咽反射、干咳干嘔反射、肢動反應及喉痙攣分級），同時記錄呼吸暫停時間。 結果 ES組能提供更好的喉罩置入條件，且能減少舌咽反射和肢體反應， 更能保證喉罩置入時血流動力學的穩定。 結論 依托咪酯乳劑復合舒芬太尼能為全麻喉罩置入時提供更好的條件，且能保證更好的血流動力學穩定。【Abstract】 Objective To investigate the hemodynamics changes when etomidate combined with sufentanil was applied for laryngeal mask airway insertion under the general anaesthesia. Methods From April 2009 to February 2010, 46 patients requiring general anesthesia using laryngeal mask airway (LMA) (American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)Ⅰ-Ⅱ) aged 18-60 were randomly divided into two groups: 23 in etomidate emulsion group (group E) underwent the intravenous injection with midazolm (0.3 mg/kg) and etomidate (0.05 mg/kg); 23 in etomidate emulsion + sufentanil group (group ES) underwent the intravenous injection with etomidate (0.15 mg/kg), midazolm (0.05 mg/kg), and sufentanil 0.5 mg/kg. The patients were evaluated by six indexes of LMA insertion (mouth opening, swallowing reflex, cough reflex,vomiting reflex, body motion, and laryngospasm classification). After the anesthesia induction, LMA was inserted. The blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded before anesthesia induction one minute after the injection and one minute after LMA insertion. Meanwhile, the apnea time was recorded. Results Compared with group E, group ES offered better anesthesia for LMA insertion, less swallowing reflex and body motion, and more stable haemodynamics. Conclusion Etomidate combined with sufentanil provides good condition for LMA insertion under the general anaesthesia with steady haemodynamics.
Objective To systematically evaluate effectiveness, dosage and adverse reaction of sufentanil versus fentanyl for postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA), so as to provide evidence for rational drug use in clinic. Methods Databases including The Cochrane Library, the special trials registered in the Cochrane anesthesia group, MEDLINE, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched by the end of 2012, and the relevant periodicals were also manually searched to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on sufentanil versus fentanyl for postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia. According to the Cochrane Handbook 5.0, literature was screened, data were extracted, and quality of the included studies was critically assessed. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. Results A total of 25 RCTs involving 1 944 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that: a) as for visual analog scale (VAS), compared with the fentanyl group, the postoperative VAS at 2-hour, 4-hour, 8-hour, 12-hour, 24-hour and 48-hour was decreased in the sufentanil group; b) as for sedation scale, the fentanyl group, the postoperative sedation at 12-hour and 24-hour was lower in the sufentanil group when adopting 0 to 3 points scoring method, but there were no significant differences at other time points; c) as for drug dosage, compared with the fentanyl group, the postoperative drug consumption at 24-hour and 48-hour was less in the sufentanil group; d) as for adverse reaction, the incidence of postoperative nausea, vomiting, dizziness and somnolence in the sufentanil group was lower than those in the fentanyl group. But there was no significant difference in other adverse reactions such as skin itching, limbs numbness and motor disturbance between the two groups; and e) as for the demands of additional analgesic drugs, compared with the fentanyl group, the incidence of demanding additional analgesic drugs was lower in the sufentanil group. Conclusion Compared with fentanyl, sufentanil has better effects of analgesia and sedation for PCEA; Its dosage and incidence of adverse reactions are lower, so sufentanil is safer in clinic.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of sufentanil versus fentanyl used in patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) after cesarean section.MethodsAn online search of computerized searches of the database of MEDLINE (OVID), Web of Science, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and SinoMed were conducted. Randomized controlled trials published since the inceptions of these databases until April 1st 2018, involving the comparison of sufentanil versus fentanyl for PCIA after cesarean section were included. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was conducted using the RevMan 5.1 software.ResultsA total of 19 studies were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with the fentanyl group, the sufentanil group had statistically significant lower VAS scores at 4-hour (MD=–0.99, 95%CI –1.03 to –0.95, P<0.001), 8-hour (MD=–0.30, 95%CI –0.40 to –0.21, P<0.001), 12-hour (MD=–0.54, 95%CI –0.62 to –0.46, P<0.001) and 24-hour (MD=–0.35, 95%CI –0.41 to –0.28, P<0.001); statistically significant higher Ramsay scores at 4-hour (MD=0.72, 95%CI 0.66 to 0.78, P<0.001), 8-hour (MD=0.93, 95%CI 0.86 to 1.00, P<0.001), 12-hour (MD=0.98, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.05, P<0.001), 24-hour (MD=0.07, 95%CI 0.03 to 0.11, P=0.000 5), 48-hour (MD=0.05, 95%CI 0.03 to 0.08, P<0.000 1). As for the adverse reactions, sufentanil group had lower risks of having nausea and vomiting (RR=0.25, 95%CI 0.19 to 0.31, P<0.001), pruritus (RR=0.41, 95%CI 0.30 to 0.57, P<0.001), dizziness (RR=0.27, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.44, P<0.001) and urinary retention (RR=0.35, 95%CI (0.15, 0.82), P=0.02).ConclusionsThe current evidence shows that, sufentanil has better analgesia and sedative effects, and less risks of adverse reactions for safer clinical use.
