咪唑安定复合芬太尼在硬膜外麻醉中的应用

目的探讨咪唑安定(力月西,Midazolam)与芬太尼(Fentanyl)联合在硬膜外麻醉中的镇静程度、遗忘及抑制内脏牵拉反应的作用。方法将择期腹部手术行硬膜外麻醉患者60例,随机分为2组(Ⅰ,Ⅱ组)各30例,Ⅰ组静注咪唑安定(力月西)0.04 mg/kg,2 min后静注芬太尼0.75μg/kg;Ⅱ组静注氟哌定0.05 mg/kg 芬太尼0.75μg/kg。两组术中酌情追加首次剂量的1/3~1/2。注药后不同时段记录镇静情况,以改良警觉/镇静观察评分法(OAA/S),观察HR、SBP、DBP和SPO2及术中牵拉反应情况。结果两组在术中的镇静效果无差异,术毕Ⅰ组较Ⅱ组苏醒快,能产生较深的遗忘作用,且能更好的抑制内脏牵拉反应。结论只要加强术中管理,咪唑安定(力月西)复合芬太尼在硬膜外麻醉中能够替代芬氟合剂。     

全凭静脉麻醉中丙泊酚联合咪达唑仑对内隐记忆的影响

目的探讨术中丙泊酚联合咪达唑仑对内隐记忆的影响,分析内隐记忆消失的中潜伏期听觉诱发电位(MLA-EP)参数界值。方法全凭静脉麻醉下行择期手术患者30例,随机分为丙泊酚组(P)和丙泊酚联合咪达唑仑用药组(PM),每组15例。所有患者切皮2min后,让患者听录音带即内隐记忆刺激。记录入室时(T1)、气管插管后5min(T2)、切皮前2min(T3)、切皮后2min(T4)、内隐记忆刺激完成即刻(T5)等时点的心率(HR)、平均动脉压(MAP)、MLAEP。术后6h进行记忆调查,测定患者的模糊辨听率。结果全麻后Pa、Nb波潜伏期延长、波幅降低(P<0.01);丙泊酚组与联合用药组MLAEP的变化无显著性差异(P>0.05)。术中所有患者的外显记忆和内隐记忆均消失;模糊辨听率比较,组内、组间相比均无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论麻醉剂量的丙泊酚[4.0~6.0mg/(kg·h)]可以消除外显记忆和内隐记忆。丙泊酚联合咪达唑仑可以消除外显记忆和内隐记忆。MLAEP参数Pa、Nb波潜伏期、波幅可以作为评价术中镇静深度的客观监测指标。     

咪达唑仑治疗儿童癫痫持续状态及惊厥频繁发作的临床研究

目的研究咪达唑仑持续静脉滴注治疗癫痫持续状态[SE,包括难治性癫痫(R SE)]及频繁惊厥发作(FCS)的临床疗效,同时探讨其安全有效剂量及副作用。方法选取收入院的SE及FCS患儿205例为观察对象,随机分为两组,治疗组103例,给予咪达唑仑持续静脉滴注;对照组102例,应用传统的一线抗癫痫药(AED s)治疗。同时将两组疗效进行对照研究,观察治疗组的最大、最小用药剂量,副反应,51例患儿进行脑电图监测。结果治疗组疗效明显高于对照组(P<0.01),治疗组的咪达唑仑安全有效剂量为1￣8μg.kg-1.m in-1,在治疗剂量下未见明显副作用,37例痫样放电随着临床发作的终止消失,14例随着发作次数的减少而减少。结论持续静脉滴注咪达唑仑治疗SE及FCS安全、可靠、有效,且常规一线AEDs治疗无效后该药仍有效,故该药可推荐为治疗癫痫持续状态及频繁惊厥发作的最佳选择。     

Buccal midazolam for agitation on psychiatric intensive care wards

Midazolam is a benzodiazepine known to be effective as a treatment for status epilepticus and for rapid tranquillisation. Buccal midazolam has recently become available in the UK. We introduced it as a treatment option for rapid tranquillisation on our intensive care wards. Buccal midazolam was found to be effective and well tolerated. Target levels of sedation were achieved in nearly 70% of subjects within half an hour. Activity was evident within 15 minutes. Over-sedation occurred in only one patient at one time point. There were no cases of respiratory depression. Buccal midazolam deserves further investigation as a non-invasive treatment option in rapid tranquillisation.     

Effects of midazolam and phenobarbital on brain oxidative reactions induced by pentylenetetrazole in a convulsion model

Context: Brain oxidative reactions are involved in epilepsy as well as neurodegenerative diseases. In animal convulsion models, some anticonvulsants have been found to suppress oxidative reactions associated with convulsions. However, the effect of anticonvulsants on brain oxidative reactions has not fully been clarified.

Objective: Midazolam and phenobarbital are often used as an intravenous anesthetic, and are known to have anticonvulsive effect, but antioxidative effect of these drugs has rarely been studied. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of these drugs on the degree of convulsions and brain oxidative reactions in an animal convulsion model.

Materials and methods: In order to evaluate brain oxidative reactions, we measured malondialdehyde (MDA) level and heme oxygenase (HO)-1 mRNA expression level in the brain of mice in a convulsion model generated by a single injection of pentylenetetrazole (PTZ). We evaluated the effects of midazolam and phenobarbital on the degree of PTZ-induced convulsions and on the changes in brain MDA level and HO-1 mRNA expression level.

Results: After PTZ injection, severe convulsions were observed in all mice. MDA level was increased in the whole brain, while HO-1 mRNA expression level was increased only in the hippocampus. Both midazolam and phenobarbital prevented the convulsions and suppressed the increase in both MDA level and HO-1 mRNA expression level in the brain.

Conclusion: In this study, both midazolam and phenobarbital suppressed PTZ-induced MDA and HO-1 reactions in the brain, suggesting that these drugs inhibit brain oxidative reactions in a convulsion model.     

咪唑安定复合芬太尼与罗哌卡因行产科麻醉效果的对比分析

目的对比分析咪唑安定复合芬太尼与罗哌卡因行产科麻醉的效果。方法选取我院2014年4月~2015年10月期间收治的产科择期手术患者172例,采用随机数字法将所收治患者分为观察组和对照组,每组86例。对照组患者给予咪唑安定复合芬太尼进行麻醉,观察组患者给予罗哌卡因进行麻醉。对比两组患者术中不同时段的心率(HR)、平均动脉压(mean artery pressure,MAP)、血氧饱和度(saturation of oxygen,Sa O2)、OAA/S的评估分数和术后不同时段的镇痛评分(VAS)以及不良反应发生情况。结果观察组患者术中20 min、40 min、60 min的心率、平均动脉压、血氧饱和度、OAA/S评分、术后各时段的VAS评分与对照组相比,差异均具有统计学意义(P0.05);观察组术后不良反应发生率低于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论罗哌卡因在产科手术麻醉中安全性更高,镇痛、镇静效果更好,术后不良反应发生率更少,相比咪唑安定复合芬太尼更值得推广使用。     

咪达唑仑联合不同剂量盐酸纳布啡用于 重度肥胖患者无痛胃镜检查的效果

〔摘 要〕 目的：探讨咪达唑仑联合不同剂量盐酸纳布啡用于重度肥胖患者无痛胃镜检查的效果。 方法：选择南昌市 第五医院 2018 年 1 月至 2020 年 7 月期间接受无痛胃镜检查的 126 例重度肥胖患者，按随机数字表法分为对照组和观察 组，各 63 例。观察组应用 2.5 mg 纳布啡复合咪达唑仑；对照组应用 5 mg 纳布啡复合咪达唑仑。比较两组患者的镇痛与镇 静情况、苏醒时间、体动与并发症。 结果：两组患者在苏醒后 5 min 的视觉模拟评分法（VAS）评分、麻醉诱导后 2 min 的 Ramsay 镇静评分比较，差异无统计学意义（P ＞ 0.05）；在苏醒后 30 min 两组患者的 VAS 评分较苏醒后 5 min 下降，差 异具有统计学意义（P ＜ 0.05）；但苏醒后 30 min 两组患者的 VAS 评分比较，差异无统计学意义（P ＞ 0.05）。内镜入喉时， 两组患者的的 Ramsay 镇静评分均较麻醉诱导后 2 min 升高，差异具有统计学意义（P ＜ 0.05）；但内镜入喉时两组患者的 Ramsay 镇静评分比较，差异无统计学意义（P ＞ 0.05）。观察组患者的完全苏醒时间为（5.03 ± 1.04）min，短于对照组的 （5.50 ± 1.20）min，差异具有统计学意义（P ＜ 0.05）。两组患者均无严重体动发生，且一般体动的发生率比较，差异无 统计学意义（P ＞ 0.05）；观察组患者的并发症发生率为 7.94 %，低于对照组的 20.63 %，差异具有统计学意义（P ＜ 0.05）。 结论：重度肥胖患者行无痛胃镜检查应用 2.5 mg 或 5 mg 的盐酸纳布啡复合咪达唑仑均可有效镇静镇痛，体动发生情况少， 但低剂量的盐酸纳布啡可减少并发症的发生，且利于患者苏醒。     

Comparative study between dexmedetomidine/nalbuphine and midazolam/nalbuphine in monitored anesthesia care during ear surgery

BackgroundMonitored anesthesia care (MAC) is the practice of administrating local anesthesia in combination with IV sedatives, anxiolytics and/or analgesic drugs during certain surgical procedures. Most of ear surgeries can be done under monitored anesthesia care.MethodologyThis is a randomized, double blind, prospective study and 100 patients undergoing ear surgery under MAC were divided into two groups of 50 patients each. The patients in group (D) received dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg IV over 10 min followed by 0.7 μg/kg/h + nalbuphine 100 μg/kg IV and in group (M) received midazolam 20 μg/kg IV followed by 20 μg/kg/h + nalbuphine 100 μg/kg over 10 min. Assessment of sedation by Ramsay sedation score, requirement of intraoperative rescue sedation, intraoperative VAS, intraoperative rescue analgesia, intraoperative hemodynamics, intraoperative bleeding, intraoperative complications, postoperative visual analogue score and postoperative rescue analgesia requirement, time to achieve full recovery and satisfaction scores of patients and surgeon were recorded.ResultsGroup (D) showed more sedation by Ramsay sedation score than the midazolam (M) group. Fifty percent in group (M) needed more rescue sedation than 26% in group (D) (p < 0.05). Intraoperative VAS was significantly higher in group (M) than in group (D) that led to the use of more rescue analgesia in 60% of group (M). Intraoperative heart rate and mean blood pressure were significantly lower in group (D) than in group (M) (p < 0.05). There was no statistical difference between the two groups as regards respiratory rate or SpO₂. Intraoperative bleeding is less significantly less in group (D). Intraoperative hypotension was significantly higher in group (D) (30%) than in group (M) (20%). Bradycardia was insignificantly higher in group (D). As regards postoperative VAS, group (D) was significantly lower than group (M). This led to the use of more rescue analgesia in 94% of group (M). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups as regards recovery time. Patient’s satisfaction was significantly higher in group (D) (80%) compared with group (M) (60%) (p >0.05). The same as regards doctor’s satisfaction where satisfaction was significantly higher in group (D) (76%) than in group (M) (54%).ConclusionWe concluded that the combination of dexmedetomidine/nalbuphine is a better alternative to midazolam/nalbuphine in MAC since it provides analgesia, amnesia and sedation with better intraoperative and postoperative patient satisfaction with better surgical field exposure.