Objective To investigate the applied significance of adjustable low-concentration of mixed oxygenand nitrous oxide inhalation sedation combined with lidocaine local anesthesia in anorectal surgery. Methods Three hundreds patients underwent anorectal surgery in our hospital were divided into control group （n=154） and observation group （n=146）. Patients of control group underwent pure lidocaine local anesthesia， and patients of observation group underwent mixed oxygen and nitrous oxide sedation analgesia combined with lidocaine local anesthesia. Vital signs before and after operation as well as results of sedation and analgesia were compared between the 2 groups. Results Anorectal surgeries of all patients were performed successfully. There were no significant differences on change of heart rate， blood pressure， and oxygen saturation between the 2 groups before and after operation （P＞0.05）. The operation time between the control group 〔（36.3±6.8） min〕 and observation group 〔（35.4±6.5） min〕 had no statistically significant difference（t=-0.607， P=0.544）. The analgesic effects （Z=-6.859， P=0.000） and sedative effects （Z=-5.275， P=0.000） of obser-vation group were both better than those of control group. Conclusions Low-concentration of mixed oxygen and nitrous oxide inhalation sedation combined with lidocaine local anesthesia can relieve the discomfort of fear and pain， no side-impacts on vital sign before and after operation were observed，and it has better effects of sedation and analgesia， therefore it can be recommended to clinical application.
Objective To assess the correlation between bispectral index (BIS) and richmond agitation sedation scale (RASS) and sedation-agitation scale (SAS) through the spearman correlation coefficient by systematic review. Methods Databases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2016), CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and CBM were searched from inception to July 2016 to collect literature on the correlation between BIS and RASS and SAS. The studies were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After extracting data and assessing the quality of the included studies, meta-analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta Analysis 3.0 software. Results A total of 12 studies involving 397 patients were included. BIS was positively correlated with RASS score and SAS, and the summary correlation coefficient was 0.742 with 95% CI 0.678 to 0.795 and 0.605 with 95% CI 0.517 to 0.681, respectively. Conclusion BIS has a good correlation with RASS and SAS, which will provide more options for assessing sedation of patients with mechanical ventilation in ICU.
【摘要】 目的 探讨腰硬联合麻醉复合丙泊酚恒速输注清醒镇静的可行性、理想的药物剂量、术中知晓情况以及麻醉质量和效果。 方法 收集2009年3-12月480例美国麻醉医师协会（ASA）Ⅰ～Ⅲ级拟在腰硬联合麻醉下行下腹部、会阴部、下肢手术的患者480例，随机分为咪达唑仑组（M组）、丙泊酚Ⅰ组（PA组）、丙泊酚Ⅱ组（PB组）、丙泊酚Ⅲ组（PC组），每组各120例。四组患者均于腰2-3或腰3-4行腰硬联合麻醉，蛛网膜下腔注入轻比重0.2 %布比卡因12～15 mg，麻醉平面确切后，M组予以咪达唑仑0.04~0.06 mg/kg，PA组先予以负荷量丙泊酚0.50 mg/kg再以2.00 mg/（kg•h）剂量持续泵注，PB组予以负荷量丙泊酚0.75 mg/kg再以3.00 mg/（kg•h）剂量持续泵注，PC组予以负荷量丙泊酚1.00 mg/kg再以3.75 mg/（kg•h）剂量持续泵注。观察患者给药前（T0）、给药1（T1）、3（T2）、5（T3）、10（T4）、30（T5）、60 min（T6）各时点血流动力学平均动脉血压（MAP）、心率（HR）的变化、脑电双频指数（BIS）值及镇静评分、术中所看到的图片的回忆及不良反应。 结果 各组在给予镇静药后MAP、HR均有所下降，但测量值的变化在正常范围内；在T3时间点，各组BIS值及镇静/警醒OAA/S评分降低，与T0比较，差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05）；与其他3组比较，在T4、T5、T6时点PC组BIS值与OAA/S评分降低，差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05），PC组的镇静遗忘满意率高于其他3组；各组间未见发生严重的舌后坠、呼吸暂停和血氧饱和度（SpO2）lt;90%。 结论 在下腹部、下肢手术中，应用腰硬联合麻醉复合1.00 mg/kg负荷量的丙泊酚继而以3.75 mg/（kg•h）剂量持续泵注，可取得良好的镇静效果，不良反应小。【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 explore the applicability of early goal-directed sedation (EGDS) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with mechanical ventilation.MethodsAn prospective double blind study was conducted. ICU patients with mechanical ventilation in the First Affiliated Hospital of Jinzhou Medical University were recruited as research objects by chester sampling from September 2015 to September 2017, and divided into an experimental group and a control group by stratified randomization. Two groups were sedated on the basis of adequate analgesia. The experimental group adopted the EGDS strategy that dexmedetomidin was the first choice to be infused at the rate of 1 μg·kg–1·h–1. And the patients were given Richmond agitation-sedation score (RASS) on the interval of 4 hours: used additionally propofol and midazolam if RASS>2, or reduced right metomomidin at the speed of 0.2 μg·kg–1·h–1 per 30 min if RASS<–3, and stopped sedation until RASS of –2 to 0. The control group adopted routine sedation strategy that propofol was the first choice to be infused and combined with dexmedetomidine and midazolam until RASS score in –2 to –3. The doses of sedative drugs, mechanical ventilation time, ICU-stayed time, total hospitalization time and the incidence of adverse events such as delirium, accidental extubation, and ICU death were compared between two groups.ResultsSixty-sis cases were selected in the experimental group and 71 in the control group. The baseline data such as gender, age, acute physiology chronic health evaluation Ⅱ (APACHEⅡ), or basic diseases in two groups had no significant differences. Compared with the control group, the per capita total doses of dexmedetomidine, propofol and midazolam in the experimental group were significantly less [right metopromicine (μg): 154.45±27.86 vs. 378.85±39.76; propofol (mg): 4 490.03±479.88 vs. 7 349.76±814.31; midazolam (mg): 255.38±46.24 vs. 562.79±97.26; all P<0.01], mechanical ventilation time, ICU-stayed time, total hospitalization time were significantly lower [mechanical ventilation time (d): 7.7±3.3vs. 11.7±3.6; ICU-stayed time (d): 10.2±3.9 vs. 19.2±4.1, total hospitalization time (d): 29.9±4.6 vs. 50.4±9.1; all P<0.01]. The Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that the incidence of delirium in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group (log-rankχ2=5.481, P<0.05). The accidental extubation rate and accidental fatality rate in two groups had no significant differences (log-rankχ2=0.078, 0.999, P>0.05).ConclusionEGDS can not only reduce the dose of sedative drugs, shorten the mechanical ventilation time, the ICU-stayed time and the total hospitalization time, but also reduce the incidence of delirium, so it has a positive impact in ICU patients with mechanical ventilation.
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.
ObjectiveTo observe the effect of dexmedetomidine combined with etomidate on the clinical safety and the tracheal extubation response after general anesthesⅠa in elderly patient undergoing thyroidectomy. MethodsFifty patients (aged between 65 and 75 years, ASAⅠor Ⅱ) scheduled for thyroid surgery between July 2012 and January 2013 were randomly divided into two groups:dexmedetomidine group (group D) and control group (group C) with 25 patients in each group. Group D received dexmedetomidine of 0.5 μg/(kg·h) through intravenous infusion after anesthesia induction, and the intravenous infusion was stopped five minutes before the end of surgery. Normal saline was infused at the same volume in group C at the same time. Patients were induced with etomidate at 0.2 mg/kg for anesthesia, and etomidate and remifentanil were used for the anesthesia maintenance during the operation. Heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and bispectral index (BIS) were recorded 5 (T1), 15 (T2) and 30 (T3) minutes after the beginning of the operation, and 15 (T4) and 5 (T5) minutes before the end of the operation. Moreover, the time of eye opening, time of extubation, the number of patients with restlessness and etomidate requirement were recorded. ResultsCompared with group C, HR and MAP at the time points of T2 and T5 in group D did not obviously change, but the number of restlessness patients in group D was significantly less than in group C (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in time of eye opening and time of extubation between the two groups (P>0.05). Etomidate requirement in group D was[(8.6±2.1) μg/(kg·min)], which was significantly lower than that in group C[(14.4±3.4) μg/(kg·min)] (P<0.05). ConclusionDexmedetomidine combined with etomidate is efficient and safe for elderly patients undergoing thyroidectomy, and this method can effectively reduce cardiovascular responses to tracheal extubation, decrease the incidence of postoperative restlessness, and reduce the requirement of etomidate during the operation.
Sedation and analgesia techniques are widely used in endoscopic diagnosis and treatment. The main purpose is to relieve the anxiety and pain of patients and reduce the risk of complications. Esketamine has obvious advantages in the clinical application of sedative and analgesic endoscopy. For example, it has strong sedative and analgesic efficacy, slight influence on respiratory circulation with its sympathomimetic properties, rapid recovery, improved postoperative cognitive function, and fewer adverse reactions. However, due to the dose-dependent side effects of esketamine, it is necessary to pay attention to adverse reactions such as increased drainage, psychotropic symptoms, nausea and vomiting, and vertigo. This article summarizes the clinical effect of esketamine, the selection of drug dosage and the research progress of clinical application in special population during diagnosis and treatment of digestive endoscopy, respiratory endoscopy and gynecological endoscopy, in order to provide a reference for clinical research and drug guidance.
目的 评价重症急性左心衰竭患者机械通气时采用咪达唑仑与吗啡联合持续镇静的效果。 方法 选择2007年4月－2010年4月在重症医学科（ICU）进行有创机械通气的重症急性左心衰竭患者86例，随机均分为咪达唑仑组（A组）、咪达唑仑联合吗啡组（B组）。采用Ramsay镇静评分，使每例患者镇静水平达RamsayⅢ～Ⅳ级。观察起效时间、镇静时间、停药后苏醒时间和停药后拔管时间；监测镇静12 h后的血气分析及血流动力学参数的变化。 结果 B组起效时间、镇静时间、停药后苏醒时间和停药后拔管时间明显短于A组（P＜0.05）。且镇静12 h后B组血气分析及血流动力学较A组明显改善（P＜0.05）。 结论 重症急性左心衰竭患者机械通气时使用咪达唑仑联合吗啡镇静能达到满意镇静效果，同时改善重症急性左心衰竭患者的低氧血症和高碳酸血症。
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.