右美托咪啶与芬太尼联合对ICU 腹部外科术后机械通气患者镇静镇痛的效果比较

目的:探讨右美托咪啶与芬太尼联合在ICU腹部外科术后机械通气患者中的应用效果及对镇静、镇痛作用的影响。方法:选择2018年5月—2019年6月ICU腹部外科术后机械通气患者62例,随机分为对照组(n=31例)和观察组(n=31例)。两组均采用芬太尼持续静脉泵入,对照组采用咪达唑仑镇静镇痛,观察组采用右美托咪啶镇静镇痛,比较两组镇痛镇静效果、镇静剂使用剂量、苏醒及达到镇静所需时间、血流动力学水平及安全性。结果:两组T2、T3时间点VAS评分分别为(2.40±0.31 vs 2.43±0.32和2.01±0.12 vs 2.05±0.15)、Ramsay量表评分分别(3.21±0.35 vs 3.20±0.33和3.01±0.25vs 3.00±0.24)均低于T1时间点(VAS评分2.94±0.69 vs 2.96±0.71;Ramsay量表评分3.57±0.61 vs 3.58±0.62)(P0.05);观察组右美托咪啶联合芬太尼镇痛镇静达到镇静所需时间(34.29±3.56) min长于对照组(23.63±3.21)(t=5.535,P=0.043);观察组镇静剂使用剂量(220.59±15.25)μg、苏醒时间(3.29±0.69)min均少(短)于对照组镇静剂使用剂量(386.44±18.92)μg、苏醒时间(7.56±1.21)min(t=6.294、6.092,P=0.023、0.025);两组T1、T2时间点心率[观察组T1(88.47±9.76)次/min、T2(86.41±9.43)次/min;对照组T1(89.53±10.41)次/min、T2(87.46±9.58)次/min]均高于T0时间点[观察组(78.78±4.35)次/min、对照组(79.12±4.41)次/min](P0.05);观察组T1、T2时间点MVP(79.58±5.71、87.53±6.76)mmHg高于对照组(74.12±4.69、75.26±5.61)mmHg(t=9.613、7.223,P=0.011、0.016);观察组的不良反应发生率为6.45%,与对照组的12.90%差异无统计学意义(χ~2=1.214, P=0.643)。结论:将右美托咪啶联合芬太尼用于ICU腹部外科术后机械通气患者中能获得良好的镇痛、镇静效果,缩短苏醒及达到镇静所需时间,血流动力学相对稳定,药物安全性较高,值得推广应用。     

外科重症病人脑电双频指数指导靶控输注咪达唑仑的镇静效果

目的评价外科重症监护病房(SICU)病人脑电双频指数(BIS)指导靶控输注(TCI)咪达唑仑的镇静效果。方法SICU病人30例,随机分为3组(n=10):A组采用恒速输注咪达唑仑0．06 mg·kg-1·h-1镇静;B组采用咪达唑仑TCI镇静,初始血浆靶浓度为60 ng/ml;C组在BIS指导下咪达唑仑TCI镇静,初始血浆靶浓度为60 ng／ml。每30 min采用Ramsay镇静评分评估镇静深度,若Ramsay镇静评分小于或大于4分,则A组输注速率增加或减少0．02 mg·kg-1·h-1,B组血浆靶浓度增加或减少20 ng／ml。C组若BIS大于或小于70,则血浆靶浓度增加或减少20 ng／ml。B、C组均随机抽取30份2 ml动脉血样,测定咪达唑仑血药浓度,用偏离性和精密度评价TCI系统的性能。结果咪达唑仑TCI系统的偏离性为12．5％,精密度为22．5％。咪达唑仑实测血药浓度与Ramsay镇静评分的相关系数为0．67(P<0．05)。镇静过程中C组Ramsay镇静评分4分所占比例(54％)高于A组(28％)和B组(40％)(P<0．01)。结论咪达唑仑TCI系统的性能可靠,用于SICU病人以BIS为70调控咪达唑仑TCI,可产生良好的镇静效果。     

Effects of repeated doses of benzodiazepines on arterial blood gases and transcutaneous Po2

The effects of repeated doses of benzodiazepines, diazepam and midazolam in combination with meperidine on arterial blood gases and transcutaneous PO2 were studied in eight healthy volunteers. The study was designed to mimic a clinical situation. Initially two doses of either midazolam 0.05 mg/kg or diazepam in fat emulsion 0.15 mg/kg were given in a randomized crossover fashion with a 20-min interval, followed by meperidine 0.5 mg/kg another 20 min later. The opioid effects were then antagonized by naloxone 0.4 mg. The initial doses of benzodiazepines caused an increase in PaCO2 and a decrease in PaO2. The changes in PaO2 were of short duration and recovered to baseline levels between injections. However, they came sooner and were more pronounced after midazolam. The changes in PtcO2 paralleled those in PaO2. The PtcO2 index as a measure of cardiac output and peripheral blood flow adequacy was increased immediately after the first injection of midazolam but was otherwise not different from control. There were no differences between the drugs concerning PtcO2 index. PaCO2 increased after the first benzodiazepine injection and remained so throughout the study. Addition of meperidine caused only small changes in PaO2 and PaCO2. These changes were reversed by naloxone. In spite of different elimination kinetics there was no difference in the duration of respiratory depression between the two benzodiazepines.     

咪达唑仑在肠镜检查中的应用

目的　研究咪达唑仑在肠镜检查中的清醒镇静作用。方法　行肠镜检查的门诊或住院病人 10 0例 ,随机分为药物组与对照组 ,每组 5 0例 ;药物组肠镜检查前缓慢推注咪达唑仑 5 μg kg ,2min后开始检查 ,术中根据情况一次追加 1～ 2 μg kg ,但总量不超过 8μg kg ;对照组为常规检查。观察两组病人检查过程中心率、血氧饱和度、血压及呼吸的变化。治疗结束后询问病人对检查过程的记忆丧失程度、感受及满意情况 ;记录检查时间与是否完成检查 ,同时操作者及助手评价病人的配合情况。结果　药物组大部分病人 ( 90 % )肠镜置入及检查过程中听从医生的指令、无焦虑 ,配合肠镜检查 ,其他的病人略有不适但都能配合检查 ,无一例不能耐受检查 ;对照组只有 5 8%的病人能配合检查 ,且有 2例因无法耐受导致检查失败 ;药物组病人对检查过程 74%完全无记忆 ,部分记忆和完全记忆的 2 6% ;而对照组部分记忆和完全记忆为 10 0 % ;药物组 90 %以上的病人对检查过程满意 ,无不满意 ,对照组满意率不到 10 % ;药物组的HR、MAP、SpO2 基本平稳 ;对照组的病人在检查过程的血压明显上升但心率下降。结论　小剂量的咪达唑仑 ( <8μg kg)能很好地应用于肠镜检查 ,具有明显的记忆缺失、减少痛苦、提高满意率和检查率 ,稳定血液动力学的作     

Intravenous or rectal administration of sedatives in outpatient oral surgery

A number of cross-over studies on sedation in outpatient oral surgery investigated the quality of sedation produced by intravenous or rectal administration of diazepam. The sedation methods were equally efficient with a mean dose of 0.24 mg/kg (range 0.1–0.4) for i.v. administration and 0.53 mg/kg (range 0.5–0.6) for rectal administration. Eighty-five percent of the patients preferred surgery under sedation and local anaesthesia to local anaesthesia alone. The patients preferred the session in which they experienced stronger sedation, regardless of the route of administration.     

靶控输注咪唑安定对靶控输注丙泊酚镇静催眠效应的影响

目的评价靶控输注咪唑安定对靶控输注丙泊酚镇静催眠效应的影响。方法ASAI～Ⅱ级择期手术患者40例，随机分为四组：A组为单纯丙泊酚组，B、C、D组为丙泊酚 咪唑安定组，咪唑安定靶浓度分别为10、20、30ng／mL。咪唑安定达到平衡后，血浆靶控输注丙泊酚。记录丙泊酚效应部位浓度为1、2、3、4、5μg／mL时BIS值和OAA／S评分，并记录OAA／S评分达到4、3、2、1时丙泊酚效应部位浓度和BIS值，记录BIS值为50时丙泊酚效应部位浓度。结果1．咪唑安定达到平衡后，C组和D组BIS值显著下降；D组中OAA／S评分也显著下降，并低于B组和C组；2．随丙泊酚浓度升高四组患者．BIS值和OAA／S评分逐渐下降；3．相同丙泊酚浓度时，BIS值和OAA／S评分随咪唑安定浓度增加呈降低趋势；4．B、C、D三组患者OAA／S评分达到3、2、1以及BIS值达到50时所需丙泊酚效应部位浓度均显著低于A组，达到相同OAA／S评分D组所需丙泊酚效应部位浓度显著低于B组和C组。结论效应部位浓度为10、20、30ng／mL的咪唑安定均能显著降低丙泊酚靶控浓度，以达到需要的镇静深度；随咪唑安定浓度加深，降低作用越明显。