Influence of age on flurbiprofen axetil requirements for preventing pain on injection of propofol in Japanese adult surgical patients: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study

BACKGROUND: Pain on injection is a recognized adverse event (AE) of propofol administration for the induction of general anesthesia. Preceded by venous occlusion, flurbiprofen axetil, a prodrug of the NSAID flurbiprofen, has been associated with a reduction in pain induced by propofol injection. A review of the literature determined that no published data were available on the influence of age on the requirements for flurbiprofen axetil dose. OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to examine the influence of age on flurbiprofen axetil requirements for the treatment of propofol-induced pain on injection in Japanese adult surgical patients. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study was conducted at the Department of Anesthesiology, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan. Young (age 20-40 years) and older (age 60-80 years) Japanese patients scheduled for various types of surgery (eg, cholecystectomy) were eligible. Patients were randomized to receive flurbiprofen axetil at 1 of 2 doses (25 or 50 mg, regardless of body weight) or inactive vehicle (saline), preceded by manual venous occlusion with a rubber tourniquet for 2 minutes and followed by the infusion of the first 25% of calculated propofol dose (0.5 mg/kg at room temperature, 23 degrees C) into the largest dorsal vein of the hand through a 20-G IV cannula (without local anesthesia), followed by the release of the occlusion and delivery of propofol 2 mg/kg. An investigator blinded to treatment questioned each patient about pain intensity during propofol injection which was assessed using a verbal rating scale: 0 = none; 1 = mild; 2 = moderate; and 3 = severe. The overall prevalence of pain was calculated in each group. AEs at the injection site (pain, edema, wheal, inflammation) were assessed by the study investigator for 24 hours after surgery using spontaneous reporting and patient interview. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients, 75 young adults (38 men, 37 women; mean [SD] age, 31 [5] years; mean [SD] height, 163 [7] cm; mean [SD] body weight, 58 [9] kg) and 75 older adults (38 men, 37 women; mean [SD] age, 70 [6] years; mean [SD] height, 154 [8] cm; mean [SD] body weight, 53 [10] kg), were enrolled. Each treatment group comprised 25 patients. No differences in demographic characteristics were observed among the 3 study groups. In young patients, the overall prevalence of propofol-induced pain was significantly lower in patients who received flurbiprofen axetil 50 mg (12 [48%]) compared with that in patients who received flurbiprofen axetil 25 mg (20 [80%]) or vehicle (22 [88%]) (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively). The median pain intensity score was significantly lower in patients who received flurbiprofen axetil 50 mg (0) compared with that in patients who received flurbiprofen axetil 25 mg (1) or vehicle (2) (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively). In older patients, the overall prevalences of pain on propofol injection were 9 (36%) in the flurbiprofen axetil 50-mg group and 11 (44%) in the flurbiprofen axetil 25-mg group compared with 21 (84%) in the vehicle group (both, P < 0.01). The median pain score was significantly lower in patients who received flurbiprofen 50 mg (0) or 25 mg (0) than in those who received vehicle (1) (both, P < 0.01). All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: In this small clinical trial in Japanese surgical patients undergoing general anesthesia, flurbiprofen axetil requirements for the reduction of pain during injection of propofol were found to be 50 mg in young adults (age 20-40 years) and 25 or 50 mg in older adults (age 60-80 years), regardless of weight, preceded by venous occlusion for 2 minutes.     

Comparison of lidocaine, metoclopramide, and flurbiprofen axetil for reducing pain on injection of propofol in Japanese adult surgical patients: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study

Background: Pain on injection is a recognized adverse event (AE) of propofol administration for the induction of general anesthesia. Pretreatment with lidocaine, metoclopramide, or flurbiprofen axetil has been reported to be effective in reducing propofol-induced pain. However, no studies comparing the efficacy of these 3 drugs for preventing pain on injection of propofol have been identified. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of lidocaine, metoclopramide, and flurbiprofen axetil for reducing pain on injection of propofol in Japanese adult surgical patients. Methods: This prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study was conducted at the Department of Anesthesiology, Ushiku Aiwa General Hospital, Ibaraki, Japan. Japanese patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery were eligible for inclusion in the study. Patients were randomized into 4 groups to receive IV lidocaine 40 mg, metoclopramide 10 mg, flurbiprofen axetil 50 mg, or placebo (saline), preceded by venous occlusion with a rubber tourniquet for 2 minutes, and followed by the administration of propofol 0.5 mg/kg into the largest vein of the hand through a 20-gauge IV cannula. Immediately after the administration of propofol, an investigator blinded to treatment interviewed each patient on injection-site pain. Responses were scored on a 4-point verbal rating scale (0 = none, 1 = mild pain, 2 = moderate pain, and 3 = severe pain). Incidence and intensity of pain (as assessed by mean pain scores) were determined in each of the 4 study groups. AEs at the injection site (eg, pain, edema, wheal, inflammation), extrapyramidal disturbance, and symptoms or signs associated with gastrointestinal (GI) ulceration were assessed by the study investigator for 24 hours following surgery using spontaneous reporting and patient interview. Results: A total of 100 patients (54 women, 46 men) aged 22 to 65 years were enrolled in the study. The patients' mean (SD) age was 42 (12) years. Their mean (SD) height was 161 (8) cm and their mean (SD) weight was 59 (9) kg. Each treatment group comprised 25 patients. There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics between treatment groups. The overall incidence of propofol-induced pain was 24% (6/25 patients) with lidocaine (P = 0.001), 28% (7/25 patients) with metoclopramide (P = 0.001), and 36% (9/25 patients) with flurbiprofen axetil (P = 0.001), compared with placebo (92%, [23/25 patients]). The median pain score was less in patients who had received lidocaine (0), metoclopramide (0), or flurbiprofen axetil (0) than in those who received placebo (2) (all, P = 0.001). The incidence and severity of such pain were not significantly different between the lidocaine-, metoclopramide-, and flurbiprofen axetil-treated groups. There were no reported injection-site AEs, extrapyramidal disturbance, or symptoms or signs associated with GI ulceration observed. Conclusions: In this study of Japanese adult surgical patients, lidocaine 40 mg, metoclopramide 10 mg, and flurbiprofen axetil 50 mg, preceded by venous occlusion for 2 minutes, were effective in reducing pain during the injection of propofol. The analgesic efficacy of these 3 drugs was comparable for minimizing such pain.     

氟比洛芬酯用于防治丙泊酚注射痛的临床观察

目的观察氟比洛芬酯防治丙泊酚注射痛的疗效。方法将100例ASAⅠ-Ⅱ级择期手术患者随机分成4组,每组25例。各组患者于注射丙泊酚前均在前臂用止血带人为阻断血流2min后分别静推利多卡因40mg（A组）、甲氧氯普胺10mg（B组）、氟比洛芬酯50mg（C组）、生理盐水5mL（D组）,注射完毕1min后松开止血带,静推丙泊酚注射液行麻醉诱导,观察每组疼痛发生率,并根据Ambesh法评分。结果A、B、C组的注射痛发生率和疼痛程度明显低于D组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。结论氟比洛芬酯能有效降低丙泊酚注射痛的发生率并减轻疼痛程度,与利多卡因、甲氧氯普胺的疗效相当。     

氟比洛芬酯和利多卡因联用缓解异丙酚注射痛的随机对照研究

目的 探讨联合应用氟比洛芬酯和利多卡因做静脉预处理缓解异丙酚注射痛的效果.方法 将160例拟行择期手术的ASI 1～2级全麻患者随机分为对照组、利多卡因组(Lc组)、氟比洛芬酯组(FA组)和氟比洛芬酯和利多卡因联用组(联用组),每组各40例.所有患者在给药前均先以橡胶止血带阻断其局部静脉回流,随后分别给予对照组0.9％ NS7 mL,FA组氟比洛芬酯注射液5mL(50 mg)+0.9％ NS 2 mL,Lc组2％利多卡因2mL(40 mg)+0.9％ NS 5 mL,联用组氟比洛芬酯注射液5mL (50 mg) +2％利多卡因2mL (40 mg);2 min后撤止血带,在5s内给入0.5 mg/kg的异丙酚.给药同时由另一位麻醉师以相同的方式及问题询问患者注射部位情况,采用VRS评分.结果 4组间一般情况比较无明显差异.Lc组、FA组、联用组的异丙酚注射痛发生率明显低于对照组(P＜0.05),联用组疼痛发生率低于其余3组.在注射痛强度评分方面,Lc组和联用组的疼痛强度明显低于对照组.术后24 h随访,患者注射部位无红肿、静脉炎或药疹等不良反应情况,亦无预期的胃肠刺激症状.结论 氟比洛芬酯和利多卡因联用做静脉预处理可有效缓解异丙酚注射痛,且不会增加不良反应.     

Prevention of pain due to injection of propofol with IV administration of lidocaine 40 mg + metoclopramide 2.5, 5, or 10 mg or saline: a randomized, double-blind study in Japanese adult surgical patients

BACKGROUND: Pain on injection is a recognized adverse event (AE) with propofol, an agent used to induce general anesthesia in surgical patients. Lidocame (LID) has been found efficacious in reducing pain on injection of propofol; however, this type of pain may not be completely eliminated with LID. Metoclopramide (MET) is a dopamine receptor agonist with antiemetic and prokinetic properties used for the treatment of nausea and facilitation of gastric emptying in patients with gastroparesis. MET also has local anesthetic properties similar to those of LID. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the effects of LID administered with 3 different doses of MET or saline on pain on injection of propofol in Japanese adults undergoing elective surgery. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind study was conducted at the Department of Anesthesiology, University of Tsukuba Institute of Clinical Medicine, Tsukuba, Japan. Japanese patients aged 20 to 67 years who were scheduled to undergo elective surgery were eligible for participation. Patients were randomized to receive N administration of LID 40 mg + MET 2.5, 5, or 10 mg or saline. A rubber tourniquet was used to perform 1 minute of venous occlusion before administration of the study and control drugs, and then 25% of the total calculated dose of propofol (2 mg/kg) was injected into the dorsal vein of the hand through a 20-G N cannula at a rate of 1 mL/s. During a 10-second pause before the induction of anesthesia, patients were questioned by a blinded investigator about the pain intensity on injection. Pain intensity was assessed through the use of a 4-point verbal rating scale, with scores ranging from 0 (no pain) to 3 (severe pain). Incidence and intensity of pain (as assessed by mean pain scores) were determined in each of the 4 study groups. Extrapyramidal reactions and injection-site AEs, including pain, edema, wheals, and inflammation occurring up to 24 hours after surgery were recorded by a blinded investigator. RESULTS: The study enrolled 240 patients (126 men, 114 women; mean [SD] age, 43 [13] years [range, 20-67 years]; mean [SD] height, 160 [8] cm [133-181 cm]; mean [SD] body weight, 57 [10] kg [range, 33-85 kg]). There were 60 patients randomized to each of the 4 study groups, which were comparable in distribution of demographic characteristics. Incidence of propofol-induced pain was significantly lower, but the intensity of pain was not less, in the groups that received LID/MET 40/5 or 40/10 (both, 5%) compared with those who received LID/MET 40/2.5 or LID/saline (18% and 20%, respectively) (all, P < 0.05). There were no reports of injection-site AEs or extrapyramidal reactions after injection of the control or study drugs in any of the study groups. CONCLUSION: Among these 240 Japanese patients undergoing elective surgery, N administration of LID/MET 40/5 or 40/10 was associated with lower incidence, but not lower mean pain intensity scores, of pain on injection of propofol than LID/MET 40/2.5 or LID/saline before induction of anesthesia.     

Lidocaine for prevention of propofol injection-induced pain: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study of the effect of duration of venous occlusion with a tourniquet in adults

Background: Many patients experience pain on injection of propofol. The use of lidocaine to prevent propofol injection pain is common. The analgesic effect of pre-injected lidocaine has been found to increase when a tourniquet is used.Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of various venous occlusion times with lidocaine analgesia to prevent pain during propofol injection.Methods: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study, women aged 18 to 45 years, classifed as American Society of Anesthesiologists physical sta- tus I or II, who were scheduled to undergo elective surgery under general anesthesia induced with propofol, were randomly assigned to 1 of 5 groups: group 1, 2% lidocaine 20 mg in saline in a total volume of 10 mL and no venous occlusion; group 2, 2% lidocaine 20 mg in saline in a total volume of 10 mL plus venous occlusion for 15 seconds; group 3, 2% lidocaine plus venous occlusion for 30 seconds; group 4, 2% lidocaine plus venous occlusion for 60 seconds; and group 5, saline 10 mL and no venous occlusion. When the first 25% of the calculated propofol dose was administered, patients were asked about propofol-induced pain using a verbal pain scale (0 = no pain; 1 = mild pain; 2 = moderate pain; and 3 = severe pain). All patients and the anesthesiologist who evaluated pain severity were blinded to the study preparation being used.Results: The study comprised 100 women who were randomly divided into 5 groups of 20 patients each. Significantly more patients in group 5 (18 [90%] patients; P < 0.05) reported pain compared with the other treatment groups. In groups 2, 3, and 4, in which venous occlusion was applied, pain was reported during propofol injection in 6 (30%), 7 (35%), and 2 (10%) patients, respectively. The incidence of reported pain was significantly greater in group 1 (lidocaine without venous occlusion) than in group 4 (P < 0.05); however, the incidence of pain was similar in group 1 compared with groups 2 and 3.Conclusions: The present study found that pretreatment with lidocaine 20 mg with or without venous occlusion significantly reduced the incidence and the severity of pain during the injection of propofol when compared with the group with no venous occlusion administered saline. In addition, pretreatment with lidocaine 20 mg plus venous occlusion for 60 seconds significantly reduced the incidence of propofol-induced pain compared with lidocaine without venous occlusion.     

氟比洛芬酯防治丙泊酚注射痛临床探索

目的观察氟比洛芬酯防治丙泊酚注射液注射痛的效果。方法90例ASk Ⅰ～Ⅱ级采用丙泊酚注射液诱导全麻病人，随机分成六组，各15例。A组静推氟比洛芬酯5m1（含量50mg），60min后开始丙泊酚注射液诱导麻醉；B组静推氟比洛芬酯5ml，30min后开始丙泊酚注射液诱导麻醉；C组静推氟比洛芬酯5ml，10min后开始丙泊酚注射液诱导麻醉；D组静推氟比洛芬酯5ml后用压脉带扎于肘部印秒后开始静推丙泊酚注射液麻醉诱导；E组静推氟比洛芬酯60s后开始静推丙泊酚注射液麻醉诱导;F组静推氟比洛芬酯5ml后即刻开始丙泊酚注射液麻醉诱导。结果疼痛发生率及疼痛评分：A组、B组与c组比较差异有显著性（P＜0．05），A组与B组比较差异无显著性（P＞0．05），E组、F组与D组比较差异有显著性（P＜0．05），E组或F组与A组或B组比较差异无显著性（P＞0．05），D组与A、B组比较差异有显著性（P＜0.05）。结论氟比洛芬酯对预防丙泊酚注射液注射痛有效，用药后即刻予丙泊酚注射液时对注射痛预防效果最好。     

Efficacy of combination intravenous lidocaine and dexamethasone on propofol injection pain: a randomized, double-blind, prospective study in adult Korean surgical patients

BACKGROUND: Pain on injection is a common adverse effect with propofol used for general anesthesia. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to evaluate the analgesic effect of dexamethasone during propofol injection and investigate whether a combination of dexamethasone and lidocaine produced additional analgesic efficacy compared with either treatment alone. METHODS: In a double-blind, prospective trial, patients scheduled to undergo elective plastic surgery were randomized to receive lidocaine 20 mg, dexamethasone 6 mg, combination lidocaine 20 mg and dexamethasone 6 mg, or normal saline with venous occlusion for 1 minute, followed by administration of 25% of the total calculated dose of propofol (2.5 mg/kg) into a dorsal hand vein. Pain intensity and incidence were evaluated during a 10-second pause before the induction of anesthesia, using a 4-point verbal rating scale (0=none, 1=mild, 2=moderate, 3=severe); a score of 1 to 3 was counted as pain. Patients were monitored hourly for 24 hours postsurgery by a blinded investigator for adverse effects at the injection site (eg, pain, edema, wheal, flare response). RESULTS: A total of 140 (35 per group) Korean patients (91 women, 49 men; mean [SD] age, 47 [14] years; mean [SD] height, 162 [8] cm; and mean [SD] body weight, 60 [8] kg) completed the study. Demographic variables were similar among groups. With respect to pain intensity, mean pain score was significantly less in the combination group than in the lidocaine or dexamethasone groups (P<0.01, respectively), although the median pain scores for all groups were 0. The incidence of pain associated with propofol injection was reduced significantly in the combination group compared with the lidocaine or dexamethasone group (0% vs 34.3% and 37.1%, respectively; both, P<0.01). One patient (in the combination group) complained of perineal itching immediately following injection; however, this subsided within a few seconds and did not require any intervention. No other adverse effects at the injection site were observed in any patient in the 24 hours post surgery. CONCLUSION: Combination lidocaine 20 mg and dexamethasone 6 mg, with venous occlusion for 1 minute, was more effective than lidocaine 20 mg or dexamethasone 6 mg alone for pain control during propofol injection in these Korean patients.     

氟比洛芬酯脂微球注射液对癌症疼痛镇痛效果的临床观察

目的：观察氟比洛芬酯脂微球载体注射液（商品名凯纷）治疗癌痛的疗效和副作用。方法：38例未使用阿片类药物的中重度癌性疼痛患者每天静脉注射50mg／5ml氟比洛芬酯脂微球载体注射液，分别就其疗效、生活质量改善情况以及不良反应等方面进行评价。结果：氟比洛芬酯脂微球载体注射液治疗中重度癌痛的有效率为71．05％，生活质量改善情况治疗前后有显著差异（P＜0．05）。但未见一般非甾体类药物常见腹痛、消化道出血等副作用；也未见便秘、恶心、呕吐、嗜睡等阿片类药物常见不良反应。结论：氟比洛芬酯脂微球载体注射液治疗中重度癌痛疗效可靠，生活质量可得到改善，不良反应发生率较低，可部分作为临床候选药品或口服吗啡替代药。     

术前输注氟比洛芬酯对子宫切除术患者围术期血浆Cor、IL-10、TNF-α的影响

【目的】探讨术前输注氟比洛芬酯（凯纷）对子宫切除术患者围术期血浆皮质醇（Cor）、白介素10（IL-10）、肿瘤坏死因子α（TNF-α）的影响和意义。【方法】择期行子宫切除术患者60例,ASAⅠ～Ⅱ级,随机分两组,凯纷组和芬太尼组,每组30例。凯纷组在手术切皮前5min静脉输注凯纷1mg／kg,芬太尼组在手术切皮前5min静脉榆注芬太尼1μg／kg,术毕两组静脉自控镇痛（PCIA）,镇痛液组方按芬太尼20μg／kg加生理盐水配成100mL,以2mL／h恒速泵注,自控给药剂量0．5mL／次,锁定时间15min,视觉模拟评分法（VAS）行术后12、24及48h静止和活动评分,分别在开放静脉前（T1）、手术结束时（T2）、术后24h（T3）、术后48h（T4）采取外周静脉血4mL测定血浆Cor、IL-10、TNF-α浓度。【结果】两组患者在各时间点的BP、HR、RR、Sp02值差异无显著性（P〉0．05）两组患者在术后12h（T2）和术后24h（T3）活动时视觉模拟评分（VAS值）比较差异具有显著性,凯纷组低于芬太尼（P〈0．05）;两组患者的血浆Cor、IL-10、TNF-α在T2显著升高,与T1比较差异具有显著性（P〈0．05）;两组患者的血浆Cor在T2、T3时,凯纷组明显低于芬太尼,差异具有显著性（P〈0．05）,而血浆IL-10在T2、T3和T4凯纷组明显高于芬太尼组,差异具有显著性（P〈0．05）;TNF-α在T2、T3和T4,凯纷组明显低于芬太尼组,差异具有显著性（P〈0．05）。【结论】术前输注凯纷能缓解子宫切除术患者术后疼痛应激反应和改善机体的免疫功能。     

开胸手术氟比洛芬酯与吗啡超前镇痛的比较

【目的】研究氟比洛芬酯和吗啡在开胸手术前使用是否有超前镇痛的效果,并对比其副作用。【方法】ASAⅠ～Ⅱ级肺和食管癌手术60例随机分为对照组、氟比洛芬酯组、吗啡组,每组20例。切皮前10min氟比洛芬酯组静注氟比洛芬酯100mg,吗啡组硬膜外腔注入吗啡3mg,对照组切皮前不做处理,观察各组术后30min、1h、4h、12h的VAS评分和24h内的副作用。【结果】氟比洛芬酯组术后30min和1hVAS评分明显低于对照组,但4h和12h和对照组无差别;吗啡组在4个时间点vAS评分均明显低于对照组和氟比洛芬酯组;副作用氟比洛芬酯组和对照组无差别,均明显低于吗啡组。【结论】切皮前氟比洛芬酯静脉注射和吗啡硬膜外腔注入均能产生超前镇痛的作用,吗啡的镇痛效果和时间均优于氟比洛芬酯,但副作用明显增多。     

静脉输注氟比洛芬酯与芬太尼对咪唑安定镇静效果的研究

【目的】评价静脉输注氟比洛芬酯（凯纷）或芬太尼对咪唑安定镇静效果的影响及安全性。【方法】134例行下腹部或下肢择期手术病人,ASAⅠ～Ⅱ级,随机将病例分为凯纷复合咪唑安定组（凯纷组）和芬太尼复合咪唑安定组（芬太尼组）,每组67例。观察两组血压（MAP）、心率（HR）、呼吸频率（RR）、SpO2,采用警觉／镇静观察评分法（OAA／S）比较两组病人的镇静程度,围术期呼吸抑制情况（SpO2≤90％超过5s）、术中牵拉或止血带压迫不适及术后有无恶心、呕吐。术后随访,采用视觉模拟量表（VAS）进行疼痛评分,记录相应的VAS值。【结果】两组比较,芬太尼组围术期呼吸抑制的发生高于凯纷组（P〈0．05）但术后恶心呕吐发生差异不具有显著性（P〉0．05）,两组患者术后6h、12h VAS评分凯纷组明显低于芬太尼组,差异具有显著性（P〈0．05）,两组患者术中OAA／S评分,各时点的MAP、HR、RR、SpO2比较,差异不具有显著性（P〉0．05）。【结论】凯纷复合咪唑安定术前静脉输注与芬太尼复合咪唑安定比较,在辅助腰硬联合麻醉是安全的,其超前镇痛效果确切,副作用小,不影响咪唑安定的镇静效果,未增加呼吸抑制的风险。     

术前输注氟比洛芬酯对子宫切除术患者围术期血浆IL-6、IL-8、TNF-α的影响。

【目的】探讨术前输注氟比洛芬酯（凯纷）对子宫切除术患者围术期血浆促炎因子白介素6（IL-6）、白介素8（IL-8）、肿瘤坏死因子α（TNF-α）的影响。【方法】择期行子宫切除术患者60例,ASAⅠ～Ⅱ级,随机分为凯纷组和芬太尼两组各30例。凯纷组在手术切皮前5min静脉输注凯纷1mg／kg,芬太尼组在手术切皮前5rain静脉输注芬太尼1μg／kg,术毕两组静脉自控镇痛（PCIA）。锁定时间15min,视觉模拟评分法（VAS）行术后12、24及48h静止和活动评分,分别在开放静脉前（T1）、手术结束时（T2）、术后24h（T3）、术后48h（L）采取外周静脉血4ml测定血浆IL-6、IL-8、TNF-α浓度。【结果】两组患者在各时间点的BP、HR、RR、SPOz差异无显著性（P〉0．05）,两组患者在术后12h（T2）和术后24h（T3）活动时视觉模拟评分（vAS值）凯纷组低于芬太尼（P〈O．05）;两组IL-6、IL-8、TNF-α水平在T2时显著升高,与本组T1时比较差异具有显著性（P〈0．05）;组间比较差异不具有显著性（P〉0．05）,在T3时比较凯纷组明显低于芬太尼组（P〈O．05）,在T4时比较差异不具有显著性（P〉O．05）;两组TNF-α在T2时比较差异不具有显著性（P〉0．05）,在T。和‘r4时凯纷组明显低于芬太尼组（P〈O．05）。【结论】术前输注凯纷能明显降低子宫切除术患者围术期血浆促炎因子IL-6、IL-8、TNF-α的水平,但不能减轻手术创伤激活了损伤部位的炎症细胞释放炎症介质。     

氟比洛芬酯对异丙酚-瑞芬太尼全凭静脉麻醉深度的影响

目的评价氟比洛芬酯对异丙酚-瑞芬太尼全凭静脉麻醉患者麻醉深度的影响。方法择期全身麻醉手术患者30例,ASAⅠ～Ⅱ级,麻醉深度采用脑电双频指数(BIS)和听觉诱发电位指数(AAI)监测,静脉注射咪唑安定0.05 mg/kg、异丙酚2 mg/kg、芬太尼3μg/kg、罗库溴铵1 mg/kg,行气管插管。术中异丙酚5 mg.kg-1.h-1、瑞芬太尼0.15μg.kg-1.min-1维持麻醉,维库溴铵间断加入维持肌松。调节麻醉药物输注速率使AAI值维持在20±5,BIS值维持在50±5。待各项麻醉监测指标稳定维持20 min后,静脉注射氟比洛芬酯1 mg/kg,分别记录氟比洛芬酯注射即刻?注射后5 min、10 min、15 min、20 min、30 min的AAI、BIS、平均动脉压(MAP)和心率(HR)值。结果给药后各时点患者的AAI、BIS、MAP和HR值与给药前相比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论临床剂量的氟比洛芬酯在异丙酚-瑞芬太尼全凭静脉麻醉中对麻醉深度无明显影响。     

氟比洛芬酯超前镇痛对子宫切除术后布托啡诺镇痛的影响

目的 研究氟比洛芬酯超前镇痛对子宫切除术后布托啡诺镇痛的影响.方法 将60例ASAⅠ～Ⅱ级行子宫切除手术的患者随机分为两组,每组30例.Ⅰ组术前15 min缓慢静脉注射氟比洛芬酯100 mg;Ⅱ组术前15 min缓慢静脉注射生理盐水20 ml.分别记录术后4、8、12、24 h的视觉模拟评分﹙VAS﹚以及24 h布托啡诺用量.结果 术后4、8、12 h ﹙VAS﹚Ⅰ组均低于Ⅱ组(P＜0.05),术后Ⅰ组的布托啡诺用量[(5.7±0.5)mg]低于Ⅱ组[(6.0±0.5)mg](P＜0.05).结论 氟比洛芬酯用于子宫切除手术超前镇痛能减少术后布托啡诺用量,提高镇痛质量.     

托烷司琼复合利多卡因预防丙泊酚注射痛的疗效观察

目的观察托烷司琼复合利多卡因预防丙泊酚注射痛的效果。方法采取随机双盲法将符合标准择期拟行手术的200例患者分为4组,I组（n=50）：生理盐水2mL;II组（n=50）：2％利多卡因40mg;Ⅲ组（n=50）：托烷司琼5mg;IV组（n=50）：托烷司琼5mg与2％利多卡因40mg。四组从静脉注射上述药物lmin后,以0．5mL／s的速度按2mg／kg脉注射丙泊酚进行诱导。根据Ambesh四分法观察每组疼痛的发生率及程度。结果Ⅱ、Ⅲ、Ⅳ实验组与对照组I组比较均可以明显降低丙泊酚静脉注射疼痛的发生率及严重程度（P〈0．05）,而Ⅱ、Ⅲ实验组间差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）,Ⅱ组与Ⅳ组间（P〈0．05）及组与Ⅳ组间（P〈0．05）差异有统计学意义。结论在丙泊酚静脉注射前缓慢预注托烷司琼复合利多卡因能有效预防丙泊酚注射痛的发生率及严重程度。     

地佐辛联合氟比洛芬酯预防腹腔镜全麻苏醒期躁动的临床研究

目的探讨术毕前应用地佐辛联合氟比洛芬酯预防腹部腔镜患者全麻苏醒期躁动的效果。方法选取择期行腹部腔镜手术(包括外科中上腹腔镜手术及妇科盆腔腔镜手术)患者90例,年龄35~45岁,ASAⅠ~Ⅱ级,无明显重要脏器功能障碍。将患者随机平均分为4组,分别在术毕前10 min静脉给药。Ⅰ组给予地佐辛5 mg;Ⅱ组给予地佐辛10 mg;Ⅲ组给予氟比洛芬酯50 mg;Ⅳ组给予地佐辛5 mg,氟比洛芬酯50 mg。动态观察4组患者全麻苏醒期的躁动,血压波动,疼痛,呕吐以及术毕至拔管时间等指标变化。4组患者均术后1 h连接PCIA设备。结果Ⅰ组与Ⅲ组患者各项指标变化差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);Ⅱ组与Ⅳ组患者比较,拔管时间较长,恶心情况较多,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);Ⅳ组分别与其他3组比较,各项指标均明显高出,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论术毕前应用地佐辛联合氟比洛芬酯可有效预防腹部腔镜手术患者全麻苏醒期的躁动等一系列不良反应。     

氟比洛芬酯复合芬太尼对子宫切除术病人术后血浆IL-1β、IL-6、IL-8及皮质醇的影响

【目的】探讨氟比洛芬酯复合芬太尼病人自控静脉镇痛（PCIA）对子宫切除术病人术后VAS评分、不良反应、应激反应及血浆细胞因子的影响。【方法】选择ASAⅠ～Ⅱ级的子宫切除术患者30例,随机分为两组,氟比洛芬酯组（F组）、对照组（C组）,每组15例。F组镇痛配方为氟比洛芬酯100mg和芬太尼10μg／kg用生理盐水稀释至100mL,负荷量为氟比洛芬酯1mg／kg。C组镇痛配方为芬太尼20μg／kg用生理盐水稀释至100mL,负荷量芬太尼50μg。记录两组不良反应发生情况,术后2h、6h、24h、48h、72hVAS评分情况。并于术前（T0）、术后24h（T1）、48h（T2）、72h（T3）抽取病人肘静脉血,检测血浆IL-1β、IL-6、IL-8、皮质醇含量。【结果】F组与C组VAs评分术后各时间点差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）,C组的恶心、呕吐发生率明显高于F组（P〈0．05）。C组与F组术前与术后各时间点血浆皮质醇、IL-1β水平变化无统计学意义。C组IL-6水平在T1、T2时升高较F组明显。C组IL-8水平在T1时升高较F组明显,差异有统计学意义。【结论】术后镇痛复合应用氟比洛芬酯和芬太尼与单纯应用芬太尼相比较,镇痛效果相近,且可减轻术后免疫抑制,不良反应发生率更低。     

混合预注舒芬太尼及利多卡因在无痛胃镜检查中缓解丙泊酚注射痛的临床观察

【目的】观察预给舒芬太尼和（或）利多卡因预防无痛胃镜检查中丙泊酚注射痛的效果。【方法】采用双盲法,选择行无痛胃镜检查的患者200例,随机分为舒芬太尼组（S组）、利多卡因组（L组）、舒芬太尼联合利多卡因组（SL组）及生理盐水组（C组）,每组50例。给予丙泊酚前1min,四组患者分别静脉注射舒芬太尼（0．2μg／kg,2mL）、利多卡因40mg（2mL）、舒芬太尼＋利多卡因（0．2μg／kg＋40mg）以及生理盐水（2mL）。所有患者以0．5mL／s速度缓慢静脉注射丙泊酚100mg,从预给药开始由另外一名麻醉医生观察是否发生注射痛及严重程度。【结果】与C组比较,L组、S组及SL组注射痛发生率和严重程度均明显降低（P〈0．05）,与S组及L组比较,SL组注射痛发生率及严重程度明显降低（P〈0．05）。【结论】预给舒芬太尼或利多卡因均可有效减少丙泊酚注射痛的发生率以及减轻丙泊酚注射痛的严重程度,且联合舒芬太尼及利多卡因效果更佳。     

Pain on injection of propofol: the effect of granisetron pretreatment

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of granisetron pretreatment in alleviating propofol injection pain. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, controlled, double-blind study, using venous retention with a tourniquet. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty adult patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: group 1 (who received 5 mL of 0.9% saline pretreatment), group 2 (who received 5 mL lidocaine [40 mg in 0.9% saline] pretreatment), and group 3 (who received 5 mL granisetron [2 mg in 0.9% saline] pretreatment). Injections were given in the largest vein on the dorsum of the hand. After 2 minutes, the tourniquet was released and one fourth of the total calculated dose of propofol (2.5 mg/kg body weight) was administered and pain assessment was made. RESULTS: Lidocaine and granisetron significantly reduced the incidence and severity of propofol injection pain more than placebo (P < 0.001). The efficacy of granisetron in alleviating the pain on injection of propofol was no different from lidocaine. CONCLUSIONS: Granisetron pretreatment may be used to reduce the incidence of pain on injection of propofol, an advantage added to the useful prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.