达克罗宁联合利多卡因、咪达唑仑和芬太尼复合麻醉在支气管镜检查中的应用

目的观察达克罗宁胶浆联合利多卡因、咪达唑仑、芬太尼静脉复合麻醉在支气管镜检查中的麻醉效果及安全性。方法将拟行支气管镜检查患者160例分为观察组80例和对照组80例。对照组给予利多卡因表面麻醉联合咪达唑仑、芬太尼静脉复合麻醉;观察组在对照组基础上,于术前加用达克罗宁胶浆含服。观察两组患者血压、心率、呼吸及氧饱和度在术前、进声门及术中的变化,比较两组患者术中麻醉效果及术后麻醉满意度。结果观察组和对照组分别有1例、4例因麻醉效果差而改用全麻完成检查,最终观察组79例、对照组76例获得完整数据。两组患者在进声门时及术中血压、心率、呼吸均有所增高,氧饱和度在进声门时短暂下降,术中恢复至术前水平,观察组血压、心率、呼吸、氧饱和度的波动幅度低于对照组(P0.05)。观察组术中麻醉效果优良率及术后麻醉满意度高于对照组(P0.05)。结论在支气管镜检查中应用达克罗宁胶浆联合利多卡因、咪达唑仑、芬太尼静脉复合麻醉减轻了病人的痛苦,提高了麻醉效果。     

芬太尼和咪达唑仑在纤维支气管镜检查中的应用

目的 探讨芬太尼和咪达唑仑在纤支镜检查麻醉中的应用的有效性和安全性。方法 在我院接受纤支镜检查100例患者随机分为试验组与对照组,对照组单纯应用局部麻醉,试验组在局部麻醉基础上加用芬太尼与咪达唑仑进行麻醉,监测两组各时点的平均动脉压、心率、呼吸频率及脉氧饱和度。对试验组按Ramsay法进行镇静分级评估,记录试验组的麻醉诱导时间和麻醉时间。调查两组患者对检查过程的遗：玺和满意程度。结果 试验组检查过程中平均动脉压、脉氧饱和度有所下降,但都较安全。麻醉诱导时间为1．1～10．2min,平均为4．8min;麻醉时间为3．2～35．5min,平均为7．9min。试验组有38／52例发生遗忘,满意度显著高于对照组。结论 在纤支镜检查联合应用芬太尼和咪唑安定麻醉安全有效。     

咪达唑仑伍用芬太尼硬膜外麻醉的镇静效果

目的探讨咪达唑仑伍用芬太尼硬膜外麻醉的镇静效果。方法 2008年1月至2010年12月我院收治的100例行硬膜外麻醉的患者,随机分为观察组及对照组,每组50例,观察组给予咪达唑仑+芬太尼,对照组给予杜冷丁+异丙嗪+氟哌利多,观察两组镇痛效果、内脏牵拉反应评分及完全遗忘率。结果两组Ramsay镇静评分比较,观察组50例中0级占38%,1级占46%,2级占14%,3级占2%,4级占0%;对照组50例中0级占2%,1级占10%,2级占40%,3级占38%,4级占10%,两组相比,每个级别所占比率均有显著差异(P<0.05);两组对内脏牵拉反应的结果为观察组50例中0级占86%,1级占12%,2级占2%;对照组50例中0级占20%,1级占26%,2级占54%,两组相比,每个级别所占比率均有显著差异(P<0.05);观察组50例中48例完全遗忘,占96%;对照组(50例)中29例完全遗忘,占58%,两组完全遗忘率有显著差异(P<0.05)。结论咪达唑仑伍用芬太尼应用于硬膜外麻醉的镇静效果显著,苏醒加快,遗忘作用较强,为硬膜外麻醉患者理想的麻醉手段。     

异丙酚、咪达唑仑和芬太尼在小儿气管异物取出术麻醉中的联合应用

气管异物是小儿常见的急症 ,取异物的麻醉要求平顺安静 ,对呼吸抑制轻微 ,苏醒快[1] 。传统的氯胺酮复合羟丁酸钠的麻醉方法用药量大 ,作用时间长 ,而且有一定程度的呼吸抑制。异丙酚系一种新型的静脉麻醉药 ,有作用时间短、可达一定的麻醉深度、术毕苏醒迅速的特点。我们将异丙酚、咪达唑仑和芬太尼联合用于 40例小儿气管内异物手术麻醉 ,效果良好 ,报告如下。1　资料与方法1 .1　一般资料　选择气管异物或怀疑气管内异物需要作支气管镜检查的患儿 40例 (ASAI- II级 ) ,年龄 1～ 5岁。随机分为氯胺酮组 (K组 ) 2 0例 ,异丙酚组 (P组 ) …     

丙泊酚复合咪达唑仑或氯胺酮用于老年人麻醉诱导的比较

目的研究丙泊酚复合咪达唑仑(咪唑安定)或氯胺酮麻醉诱导对老年人插管期血流动力学及苏醒后精神状态的影响。方法行气管插管全麻老年病人40例,随机分成两组:咪唑安定组(M组)和氯胺酮(K组)。麻醉诱导开始时,两组分别静注咪唑安定0.05 mg/kg或氯胺酮0.5 mg/kg,再依次给予同样剂量的丙泊酚、维库溴铵、芬太尼,辅助通气3 min后行气管插管,记录插管前后血压、心率的变化。术后随访病人有无躁动、噩梦等精神方面不良反应。结果两组病人麻醉诱导过程血压、心率组间总的变化比较没有差异(P>0.05),氯胺酮组插管前后的血压、心率变化程度小于咪唑安定组(P<0.05)。M组、K组诱导期出现平均动脉压<60 mmHg分别有4例、1例,均可用麻黄素治疗,组间无差异(P<0.05)。苏醒期两组各有2例,3例患者出现轻度躁动,组间无差异(P<0.05)。术后第1、2天两组患者均无噩梦、幻觉等精神方面不良反应。结论丙泊酚复合氯胺酮较复合咪唑安定在老年患者麻醉诱导插管前、后的血流动力学稳定,且苏醒后无更多躁动、噩梦、幻觉等精神方面不良反应。     

硬膜外麻醉辅以咪达唑仑芬太尼镇静效果观察

硬膜外麻醉中由于患者清醒,可出现各种不适。为达到满意的麻醉效果,常需辅助镇静、镇痛药。2007年1月-2008年12月,我们在硬膜外麻醉中辅以咪达唑仑芬太尼,观察其镇静效果及并发症。现报告如下。     

低剂量咪达唑仑在胃镜检查中的应用

胃镜检查具有侵入性,会引起患者的焦虑和痛苦,适当给予镇静剂可减轻患者的焦虑与紧张心理,提高检查及治疗的耐受性。我们对30例胃镜检查的患者术前静脉滴注低剂量咪达唑仑,取得了满意的效果,报告如下。 1.临床资料:药物组30例,男17例,女13例,年龄(48.0±8.1)岁,体重(64.1±9.1)kg;对照组20例,男11例,女9例,年龄(49.0±7.9)岁,体重(65.0±7.2)kg。     

咪达唑仑、地西泮、盐酸哌替啶联用在无痛胃肠镜中的临床应用

目的探讨咪达唑仑、地西泮、盐酸哌替啶联用在无痛胃肠镜中的应用效果。方法应用随机数字表将1000例在我院接受无痛胃镜及结肠镜检查者分为4组,每组250例。Ⅰ组和Ⅱ组为无痛胃镜组,Ⅲ组和Ⅳ组为无痛结肠镜组。Ⅰ组和Ⅲ组静注丙泊酚1.5 mg/kg,Ⅱ组和Ⅳ组联合静注咪达唑仑0.05 mg/kg。地西泮0.1 mg/kg,盐酸哌替啶1 mg/kg,各组被检查者入睡,呼唤无答应,呼吸平稳后,即可行检查。分别对比观察Ⅰ组和Ⅱ组,Ⅲ组和Ⅳ组检查中、检查后的SBP、DBP、HR、SpO2;检查中反应、呼之睁眼时间、完全清醒时间以及询问对检查的记忆、自身感受和是否愿意再次接受检查等。结果 1 000例被检查者均安全完成检查。察Ⅰ组和Ⅱ组,Ⅲ组和Ⅳ组检查中、检查后的SBP、DBP、HR、SpO2水平相仿。Ⅰ组和Ⅲ组所有被检查者对检查过程完全无知晓。Ⅱ组和Ⅳ组分别有3.2%被检查者和2.4%检查者检查中有轻度不适记忆,但都表示可以耐受。1 000例被检查者都表示在必要时愿意再次接受相同检查。结论咪达唑仑、地西泮、盐酸哌替啶的联用于无痛胃镜检查安全有效,无意外发生,清醒快,不需要专业麻醉师实施给药及全程监护,更经济,实际工作中更方便。     

小剂量咪达唑仑-芬太尼在支气管镜检查中的作用及其对心、肺功能的影响

目的 探讨在不需要麻醉科医师监护和特殊供氧条件下,小剂量咪达唑仑-芬太尼静脉复合麻醉在支气管镜检查中的作用及其对心、肺功能的影响.方法 选取在我院接受支气管镜检查的患者共47例,分为2组:A组为1％丁卡因喷喉及2％利多卡因环甲膜穿刺法局部黏膜表面麻醉,共20例;B组为上述局部麻醉方式加用小剂量咪达唑仑-芬太尼静脉注射镇静镇痛,共27例.记录对比患者术中镇静分级、不良反应发生情况、术后满意度、遗忘程度,观察其麻醉前、麻醉后术前、术中进声门时及术后生命体征(心率、呼吸频率、血氧饱和度、平均动脉压)和术前、术后10 min、术后4h肺功能指标[用力肺 活量(FVC)、第1秒用力呼气量(FEV1)、FEV1/FVC、最大呼气流量(PEF)]变化情况.结果 A、B两组在患者镇静分级、术中不良反应程度、术后遗忘程度及患者主观满意度四个方面差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.05),B组明显优于A组.两组肺功能指标FVC、FEV1及PEF在术后10 min均较术前下降,其中B组用力肺活量下降程度较A组更显著(P＜0.05);两组术后4h的肺功能可回到基线水平.两组生命体征指标:A组内心率、呼吸频率、平均动脉压在术中进声门时及术后较麻醉前升高,且术中进声门时血氧饱和度较麻醉前下降( P＜0.05);而B组仅心率较麻醉前差异具有统计学意义,且A组术中进声门时心率和平均动脉压的升高程度均大于B组(P＜0.05).结论 小剂量咪达唑仑-芬太尼复合麻醉在支气管镜麻醉效果方面明显优于传统局部麻醉方式,且对心血管系统及氧和方面的影响更小,对于术后4h肺功能各指标无附加影响;由于不需要专职麻醉医师监护管理以及其麻醉的有效性及安全性,更易于被医师及患者所接受,有利于其在临床推广.     

右美托咪定与咪达唑仑治疗胸科老年人麻醉术后谵妄的效果比较

目的探讨右美托咪定与咪达唑仑(力月西)在胸科老年人麻醉术后谵妄的临床效果。方法将76例胸外科老年手术患者随机分为观察组和对照组各38例,两组均给予芬太尼持续静脉泵入镇痛,对照组首次静脉推注力月西0.05mg/kg,随后以0.02~0.08 mg·kg~(-1)·h~(-1)维持麻醉,观察组首次静脉推注右美托咪定1.0μg/kg,然后以0.2~0.7μg·kg~(-1)·h~(-1)维持麻醉,比较两组镇静效果和不良反应发生。结果两组镇静效果时间均无统计学差异(P>0.05);但观察组停药后苏醒时间短于对照组,不良反应发生率低于对照组(P<0.05)。两组手术后SDS及SAS评分明显低于干预前,且观察组明显低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论右美托咪定用于胸外科老年手术中的镇静效果好,且降低不良反应发生率。     

Sedation, analgesia, and cardiorespiratory function in colonoscopy using midazolam combined with fentanyl or propofol

Background and aims  

The use of sedatives during colonoscopy remains controversial because of its safety concerns. We compared cardiorespiratory function and sedative and analgesic effects in sedative colonoscopy, using combinations of midazolam with either fentanyl or propofol.     

异丙芬分别复合芬太尼和米唑安定行无痛胃镜检查的研究

目的 比较异丙芬复合芬太尼或米唑安定用于无痛胃镜检查的有效性和安全性.方法 将180例需要无痛胃镜检查的患者分为A、B、C三组,每组各60例.A组单独静脉注射异丙芬1.5mg/kg,B组先注射芬太尼0.5mg后再注射异丙芬1.5mg/kg,C组先注射米唑安定0.02～0.03 mg/kg后再注射异丙芬1.5 mg/kg.至患者睫毛反射消失后开始插镜检查,如有呛咳、体动等表现时追加异丙芬30～40 mg.记录患者用药前、插镜前、检查结束后各时间点的呼吸、血氧饱和度、血压、心率以及不良反应.结果 B组和C组的异丙芬用量明显少于A组(P＜0.01).B组苏醒最快,没有注射部位疼痛,呛咳、体动等发生率明显低于A组(P＜0.05).结论 异丙芬联合芬太尼组具有麻醉镇痛效果好、副反应少、苏醒快等优点,更适合于无痛胃镜检查.     

丙泊酚复合不同阿片类药物在老年人结肠镜检查中的镇静效果

目的 探讨丙泊酚复合不同阿片类药物应用于老年人结肠镜检查镇静的效果.方法 60例老年结肠镜受检者随机分为3组,均采用靶控输注方法给予丙泊酚,其中20例单次推注芬太尼(芬太尼组),靶控输注舒芬太尼(舒芬太尼组)、瑞芬太尼(瑞芬太尼组)各20例.记录患者血流动力学改变、镇静深度和不良事件.结果 3组受检患者一般情况、血流动力学改变、镇静深度和不良事件比较差异无统计学意义(均P＞0.05).检查后恢复时间芬太尼组[(21.3±4.6)min]长于舒芬太尼组[(19.9±3.3)min]和瑞芬太尼组[(15.9±1.8)min],且与瑞芬太尼组比较差异有统计学意义(均P＜0.05).结论 丙泊酚复合3种阿片类药物均可安全有效地用于老年人结肠镜检查,但使用瑞芬太尼受检者恢复更为迅速.

Abstract：

Objective To explore the feasibility and safety of fentanyl, sufentanil or remifentanil combined with target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol for sedation in the elderly undergoing colonoscopy. Methods In this prospective randomized study, 60 patients undergoing colonoscopy and propofol TCI were randomly assigned to group F (fentanyl), group S (sufentanil) and group R (remifentanil)(each n=20). Patients in group F received a single bolus of fentanyl, while those in group S and group R received TCI sufentanil and remifentanil separately. The blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen content and Bispectral index (BIS) were monitored, and all the complications were recorded. Results All patients were adequately sedated. There were no significant differences in general conditions, hemodynamics changes, sedation depth and adverse event among the three groups (all P＞0.05). Time for recovery was longer in group F [(21.3±4.6) min] than in group S [(19.9±3.3) min] and group R [(15.9±1.8) min, P＜0.05]. Conclusions For the elderly undergoing colonoscopy, sedation with fentanyl, sufentanil or remifentanil combined with propofol TCI is feasible and safe. It is more excellent for the remifentanil group at shorter discharge time.     

Conscious analgesia/sedation with remifentanil and propofol versus total intravenous anesthesia with fentanyl,midazolam, and propofol for outpatient colonoscopy

BACKGROUND: This study tested the hypothesis that, for colonoscopy, analgesia/sedation with remifentanil and propofol might be more effective compared with anesthesia by intravenous administration of midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized trial, 100 adult patients received either conscious analgesia/sedation (Sedation group) or total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA group). Analgesia/sedation was achieved by infusion of remifentanil (0.20 to 0.25 microg/kg/min) and propofol in titrated doses. TIVA was induced by intravenous administration of fentanyl (2 microg/kg), midazolam (0.05 mg/kg) and propofol (dosage titrated). Cardiorespiratory parameters and bispectral index were monitored and recorded. The quality of the analgesia was assessed with a Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NRS); recovery level and return of psychomotor efficiency were evaluated with, respectively, the Aldrete scale and a Modified Post Anesthesia Discharge Scoring (MPADS) system. RESULTS: Both groups of 50 patients were comparable with respect to demographic data, initial parameters, and duration of colonoscopy. All patients in the TIVA group found the colonoscopy painless (NRS score 0). In the Sedation group, the average pain intensity score was 0.4 (0.8). There was a marked difference between the Sedation and TIVA groups with respect to the time from the end of the procedure until the maximum MPADS score was reached: respectively, -6.9 (4.0) versus 25.7 (8.4) minutes (p < 0.001). In the TIVA group, changes in mean arterial pressure and heart rate and signs of respiratory depression were significant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Combined administration of remifentanil and propofol for colonoscopy provides sufficient analgesia, satisfactory hemodynamic stability, minor respiratory depression, and rapid recovery, and allows patients to be discharged approximately 15 minutes after the procedure.     

Combined sedation with midazolam/propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients

Background  

Although gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation is increasingly performed in elderly patients, data on combined sedation with midazolam/propofol are very limited for this age group.     

异丙酚静脉复合麻醉在老年人胃肠镜联合检查中的应用

目的 评价异丙酚合并芬太尼静脉麻醉在老年患者胃肠镜联合检查中的效果及安全性.方法 回顾分析326例采用静脉麻醉下胃肠镜联合检查(联合检查组)老年患者的临床资料,与同期接受静脉麻醉下胃镜(胃镜组)或结肠镜检查(结肠镜组)的老年患者进行对照,比较各组血压、心率、血氧饱和度(SpO2)变化情况以及不良反应发生情况.结果 异丙酚平均用量分别为联合检查组(100.4±38.5)mg、胃镜组(130.4±50.5)mg、结肠镜组(170.3±60.3)mg,所有患者均能达到胃肠镜检查的满意镇静程度,无因麻醉并发症终止胃肠镜检查者;心率、血压变化及心血管事件发生率各组间比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);呼吸事件发生率分别为9例(3.1％)、6例(2.3％)和13例(4.0％),差异亦无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 在严格控制适应证、术中严密监测的条件下,应用异丙酚静脉复合麻醉对于老年患者胃肠镜联合检查是安全、有效的.     

Clinical study of anesthetization by dezocine combined with propofol for indolent colonoscopy

AIM: To assess the use of dezocine combined with propofol for the anesthetization of patients undergoing indolent colonoscopy.METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of patients undergoing indolent colonoscopy in the Xinjiang People’s Hospital was conducted from April 1 to April 30, 2015. The survey collected patient general information and anesthesia data, including overall medical experience and pain management. Thirty minutes after colonoscopy surgery, samples of venous blood were collected and the biochemical indicators of gastrointestinal function were analyzed.RESULTS: There were 98 female and 62 male respondents. Indolent colonoscopy was found to be more suitable for mid to older-aged patients. The necessary conditions for the diagnosis of digestive diseases were required in 65 of the 73 inpatients. Adverse reactions to the intraoperative process included two cases of body movement and two cases of respiratory depression. Gastrin and vasoactive intestinal peptide levels were slightly increased. However, somatostatin and endothelin levels were slightly decreased.CONCLUSION: This study revealed that dezocine combined with propofol can be successfully used for the anesthetization of indolent colonoscopy patients without pain and should be widely used.     

异丙酚复合芬太尼在无痛肠镜中的临床观察

目的 探讨异丙酚复合芬太尼实施监护下麻醉管理（monitored anesthesia Care，MAC）技术，应用于肠镜检查中的有效性和安全性。方法 200例行肠镜检查者随机分为MAC组（n=100）和对照组（n=100），对照组行常规肠镜检查。MAC组以芬太尼1μg／kg静脉注射，继以异丙酚1～2mg／s速度推注，Ramsay镇静分级5级后行肠镜检查，术中5～10mg／min速度维持MAC。结果 MAC组无痛率100％，其中安静入睡98例（98％），轻微肢体活动16例（16％），明显肢体活动影响操作4例（4％），清醒时间短，不良反应少，检查中生命体征平稳。对照组病例则有不同程度的腹胀、腹痛、大声喊叫、肢体活动及其他不适，不良反应多。结论 异丙酚复合芬太尼MAC技术应用于肠镜检查，镇痛镇静效果确切，安全。     

A comparative study of propofol alone and propofol combined with midazolam for dental treatments in special needs patients

Although dental treatment with sedation is performed increasingly in special needs patients, data on adding midazolam to intravenous propofol sedation are very limited for this group. The purpose of this study was to identify the factors and procedure time associated with the use of intravenous sedation with propofol alone or propofol combined with midazolam in dental patients with special needs.This was a retrospective data analysis. The sedation medications and relevant covariates, including demographic parameters, disability levels, oral health conditions, dental procedures, treatment time, and side effects, of 718 patients with special needs were collected between April 2013 and September 2014. The unfavorable side effects by sedation types were reported. Factors associated with procedure time and the sedation medications were assessed with multiple logistic regression analyses.Of 718 patients, 8 patients experienced unfavorable side effects (vomiting, sleepiness, or emotional disturbance) after the dental procedures; the rate was 0.6% in the 509 patients who received propofol only. In 209 patients who received propofol and midazolam, 2.4% experienced the side effects. Sedation time was associated with body mass index (BMI) < 25 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04–2.04) and the performance of multiple dental procedures (aOR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.06–1.97) but not associated with the sedation types. A significant odds ratio for the combined use of propofol and midazolam was shown for adolescents (aOR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.28–3.86), men (aOR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.41–2.98), patients with cognitive impairment (aOR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.21–3.29), and patients undergoing scaling procedures (aOR = 1.64, 95% CI: 1.13–2.39).With the acceptable side effects of the use of propofol alone and propofol combined with midazolam, multiple dental procedures increase the sedation time and the factors associated with the combined use of propofol and midazolam are younger age, male sex, recognition problems, and the type dental procedure in the dental treatment of patients with special needs.