上腹部手术中胸段硬膜外麻醉联合全身麻醉对血流动力学的影响

目的 观察胸段硬膜外麻醉联合全身麻醉(TEA+GA)与全凭静脉麻醉(TIVA)这两种麻醉方法在上腹部手术时血流动力学参数的改变.方法 自2007年12月至2008年5月选择44例拟行择期上腹部手术的美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)Ⅱ～Ⅲ级患者,麻醉诱导前行胸段硬膜外穿刺置管.麻醉诱导及气管内插管完成后,持续静脉输注丙泊酚和雷米芬太尼维持静脉麻醉.然后患者被随机双盲分入TEA+GA组(n=22)或TIVA组(n=22).TEA+GA组患者在单次硬膜外腔注入0.25%布比卡因0.2 ml/kg后继以0.2 ml·kg-1·h-1的剂量持续输注;而TIVA组则单次硬膜外腔注入生理盐水后继之持续输注之,其容积和速率与上组相同.监测指标为:心电图、动脉收缩压(SAP)、舒张压(DAP)、平均动脉压(MAP)、心率(HR)、中心静脉压、心指数(CI)、全身血管阻力(SVR)、脉搏氧饱和度和呼气末CO2水平,间断进行血气分析.两组的观测时间均为90 min.结果 在硬膜外腔应用布比卡因或生理盐水后的观察时点,TEA+GA组SAP、DAP、MAP、HR和SVR呈显著性降低;与TIVA组相比,TEA+GA组SAP、DAP、MAP和SVR的降低均具有统计学意义(P≤0.05).但TEA+GA组CI、SV改变不大,与TIVA组相比差异无统计学意义.结论 TEA+GA麻醉中尽管血压呈一定程度下降,但可能与体循环阻力降低有关,而其心功能并未受到明显抑制.提示TEA+GA麻醉方法具有较好的心血管系统稳定性.

The hemodynamic effects during thoracic epidural anesthesia combined with general anesthesia In patients undergoing major abdominal operations

Objective To investigate the hemedynamic effects between the two established anesthetic managements: thoracic epidural anesthesia combined with general anesthesia (TEA+GA) as well as total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). Methods Forty-four patients undergoing major abdominal operation were randomized to TEA + GA ( n = 22 ) group or TIVA ( n = 22 ) group. After thoracic epidural catheterization,the anesthesia induction and endotracbeal intubafion was made and a standard anesthesia procedure was administered for both groups. In TEA + GA group, the patients received thoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA) with 0.25% bupivacaine (bolus 0. 5 mg/kg firstly and then infused continuously with 0.2 the same bolus volume and same infusion rate as in TEA + GA group. The parameters monitored were as follows: ECG, systolic arterial pressure (SAP), diastolic arterial pressure (DAP), heart rate(HR) ,central venous pressure, cardiac index (CI), systemic vascular resistance (SVR), pulse oximetry and PetCO2. Blood gas analysis was made as needed. The observation time for both groups was 90 min. Results After epidural infusion of bupicacaine (TEA + GA group) or saline (TIVA group), SAP, DAP, HR and SVR in TEA + GA group were statistically decreased in comparing with the baseline, and SAP, DAP, MAP and SVR were also decreased significantly when compared with those in TIVA group (P≤ 0.05). However, CI and SV in TEA + GA group changed little and showed no statistical differences in comparing with those in TIVA group. Conclusions This study gives evidences that TEA in combination with GA had no negative effects on cardiac functions. The decrease of blood pressure may possibly be caused by the reduction of systemic vascular resistance.