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 impacts of pulmonary rehabilitation at different levels of exercise intensity on health status of patients with moderate to severe COPD. Methods Thirty-two COPD patients treated with pulmonary rehabilitation by ergometry exercise were randomly assigned to exercise intensity level either by anaerobic threshold （AT group; n=15） or by maximum tolerate [high intensity group（HI group）; n=17]. Nine COPD patients without exercise training served as control. Bicycle exercise training was conducted in two separate days each week for 12 weeks. Spirometry，cardiopulmonary exercise testing，the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire （SGRQ） were accessed before and after the rehabilitation program. Results Exercise intensity （%Wmax） was significantly higher in HI group than AT group （69%±14% vs 52%±7%，Plt;0.01）. Significant improvement of SGRQ scores after rehabilitation were found both in AT group （－11.91±15.48 U） and HI group （－8.39±9.49 U）. However，no significant difference was found between the two groups in the degree of improvement （Z=－0.540，P=0.589）. Symptoms and impacts subscale scores of SGRQ were decreased significantly in HI group，but only symptoms scores decreased significantly in AT group. The control group did not show any significant improvement in SGRQ scores. No statistically significant correlation was found between improvement of peak oxygen consumption per predicted (VO2peak%pre) and SGRQ scores. Conclusion Both pulmonary rehabilitation strategies by anaerobic threshold and by maximum tolerate can improve health status of COPD patients significantly with no significant difference between each other.
