不同麻醉和镇痛方法对胸科手术胰岛素抵抗及相关因素影响的研究

目的 研究不同麻醉和术后镇痛方式对胸科手术后胰岛素抵抗(insulin resistance,IR)的影响及相关因素.方法 60例胸科手术患者按随机数字表法随机分为两组:对照组(GA组,n=30),实验组(GEA组,n=30).GA组行全麻+术后静脉镇痛;GEA组行硬膜外麻醉复合全麻+术后硬膜外镇痛.分别于麻醉前、术毕...     

全麻复合硬膜外阻滞用于老年胸科手术

胸科手术采用硬膜外阻滞复合全麻近年已被临床广泛采用,此法有减少全麻药用量,术后患者苏醒快,留置硬膜外导管便于术后镇痛等优点。本文就硬膜外阻滞复合全麻与传统静吸复合全身麻醉方法作一比较。资料与方法一般资料择期胸科手术患者80例。ASAⅡ或Ⅲ级,年龄60~76岁,术前检查有     

不同麻醉方法用于胸科手术患者的效果

目的探讨胸科手术不同麻醉方法的效果。方法择期拟行胸科手术患者90例,性别不限,年龄18～65岁,ASA分级Ⅱ或Ⅲ级。采用随机数字表法,将患者分为2组(n=45):静吸复合全麻组(Ⅰ组)和全麻联合硬膜外麻醉组(Ⅱ组)。Ⅰ组麻醉诱导后,吸入七氟醚,持续输注丙泊酚维持麻醉;Ⅱ组先采取硬膜外麻醉,麻醉平面稳定后全麻诱导,吸入七氟醚维持麻醉。于术前30 min时、术中10 min时、术后10 min时记录患者的SBP、MAP、DBP、HR、SpO2。术毕记录患者气管导管拔管时间、自主呼吸恢复时间及完全清醒时间,并记录气管导管拔管即刻(T1)、拔管后5 min(T2)、10 min(T3)及20 min(T4)的RSS镇静评分。结果与Ⅰ组比较,Ⅱ组术中及术后10 min时SBP、MAP、DBP和HR降低,自主呼吸恢复时间、拔管时间及完全清醒时间显著缩短,T1-4时RSS镇静评分明显升高(P0.05)。结论全麻联合硬膜外麻醉用于胸科手术的效果优于静吸复合麻醉。     

胸段硬膜外复合静脉全麻与全凭静脉麻醉在开胸手术中的比较

目的 比较胸段硬膜外复合静脉全麻与全凭静脉麻醉对开胸手术患者血流动力学、麻醉药维持剂量、术后苏醒、躁动及疼痛的影响.方法 64例择期行剖胸手术患者,ASA Ⅱ级～Ⅲ级,采用完全随机设计的方法分为2组.A组:胸段硬膜外复合静脉全麻组,患者预先用10 ml 0.25%布比卡因和0.1 mg芬太尼硬膜外给药.术中硬膜外0.25%布比卡因和芬太尼10μg/ml,5 ml/h复合丙泊酚维持.B组:全凭静脉麻醉组,丙泊酚-端芬太尼全凭静脉麻醉.观察并记录不同时间点2组心率(HR)、平均动脉压(MAP)、中心静脉压(CVP)、所需麻醉维持药量、术毕清醒及出现疼痛时间.结果 2组患者各观察点血流动力学变化比较,差异无统计学意义;胸段硬膜外复合静脉全麻组麻醉维持不需要静脉镇痛药瑞芬太尼和肌松药阿曲库铵,只需复合充分的丙泊酚镇静,就能满足手术需求;术后苏醒早;拔管时间(11±4)min,相对于全凭静脉麻醉组(23±16)min明显缩短(P<0.05):躁动例数显著减少;术后出现疼痛时间(7.4±2.6)min相对于全凭静脉麻醉组(0.5士0.3)min明显延长(P<0.01).结论 胸段硬膜外复合静脉全麻用于开胸手术快通道麻醉是一种安全、经济、有效并有利于患者术后恢复的麻醉方法.     

全麻复合硬膜外阻滞对高血压患者手术血流动力学影响的临床观察

目的 观察全麻复合硬膜外阻滞对高血压患者胸、腹部手术血流动力学的影响.方法 选择ASAI~Ⅱ级40例择期行胸腹部手术合并高血压患者,随机分为2组,每组20例.A组(观察组)选择全麻复合硬膜外阻滞,B组(对照组)单纯全麻.观察术中不同时段的血流动力学变化.结果 2组患者在术前、诱导及插管时血流动力学无明显差异,但在术中及...     

全麻复合胸段硬膜外阻滞预防气管插管时心血管反应的效果

全麻复合胸段硬膜外阻滞预防气管插管时心血管反应的效果宋剑乔，严火荣我们观察了全麻复合胸段硬膜外阻滞预防气管插管时心血管副反应的效果，以评估其应用价值。资料与方法选择择期行胆囊或胃次全切除手术的患者４０例，ＡＳＡⅠ～Ⅱ级。随机分为两组；１组（全麻组），...     

全麻复合胸段硬膜外阻滞用于老年病人食管癌手术的观察

目的　观察全麻复合胸段硬膜外阻滞用于老年病人食管癌手术的临床效果。方法　5 4例择期行食管癌根治术老年患者 ,随机分单纯全麻 (A)组和硬膜外复合全麻 (B)组 ,每组 2 7例。不同时间点采静脉血测定胰岛素、皮质醇、肾上腺素和血糖浓度。结果　两组术中血皮质醇、血糖浓度均升高 ,切皮后 12 0min时均达高峰 ,B组低于A组 (P <0 0 5 )。术中血胰岛素水平亦呈上升趋势 ,肾上腺素水平A组明显高于B组 (P <0 0 5 )。MAP、HR于切皮后 4 5min及 6 0minA组显著升高 ,拔管时达高峰 ;同期B组无明显波动。结论　静脉全麻复合硬膜外阻滞用于老年人食管癌根治手术 ,应激反应小 ,全麻药用量和术后躁动减少 ,病人恢复快。     

胸科手术患者单肺通气期间rScO2降低的危险因素

目的筛选胸科手术患者单肺通气期间局部脑氧饱和度(rScO2)降低的危险因素。方法选择2017年8月至2018年9月择期拟行胸科手术且需要单肺通气的患者175例,性别不限,年龄≥55岁,预计手术时间≥2 h。于麻醉诱导前开始持续监测rScO2至拔除气管插管后结束。采用全麻、全麻联合硬膜外阻滞或全麻联合局部神经阻滞。记录患者一般情况、既往病史和麻醉手术史、手术类型、麻醉方式、麻醉时间、单肺通气时间、手术时间和术中不良事件(低氧血症、低血压和心动过缓等)发生情况。根据单肺通气期间是否发生rScO2降低(rScO2绝对值小于65%或较基础值降低大于20%),将患者分为2组:rScO2降低组和rScO2正常组。采用多因素logistic回归分析筛选单肺通气期间rScO2降低的危险因素。结果有107例患者单肺通气期间发生了rScO2降低,发生率为61.1%。logistic回归分析结果显示,低氧血症是胸科手术患者单肺通气期间rScO2降低的独立危险因素,全麻联合硬膜外阻滞是rScO2降低的保护性因素(P<0.05)。结论低氧血症是胸科手术患者单肺通气期间rScO2降低的独立危险因素,而全麻联...     

胸段硬膜外阻滞复合全麻对冠心病病人术中血液动力学及ST段的影响

本研究旨在探讨冠心病人术中应用胸段硬膜外阻滞复合全麻对术中血流动力学及ＳＴ段影响 ,并与全麻组进行对比观察。资料和方法选择ＡＳＡⅡ～Ⅲ级择期行肝胆外科手术的冠心病人 6 0例 ,年龄 40～ 6 5岁 ,心功能Ⅰ～Ⅱ级 ,其余脏器功能均正常。随机分为两组 ,Ａ组采用胸段硬膜外加全麻 ,Ｂ组采用全麻。术前 30ｍｉｎ肌注阿托品 0 5ｍｇ ,0 1ｇ ,入室后开放静脉通路 ,Ａ组病人先行胸段 (Ｔ8 9)硬膜外阻滞 ,置管后 ,注入试验量 3ｍｌ,局麻药采用 1%利多卡因加0 2 %地卡因 ,5ｍｉｎ后观察无全脊麻征象注入局麻药 6ｍｌ,15ｍｉｎ后测试麻醉平…     

全麻与硬膜外阻滞复合麻醉应用于普胸手术的临床观察

目的探讨普胸手术适宜的麻醉方式。方法选择普胸手术32例,随机分为全麻复合硬膜外阻滞组(复合组)和单纯全麻组(对照组),对其进行血流动力学、全麻药用量,拔管时间对比观察。结果复合组与对照组差异有统计学意义。结论全麻复合硬膜外阻滞用于普胸手术是一种理想的麻醉方法。     

Routine immediate extubation for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting without thoracic epidural analgesia

BACKGROUND: The expansion of coronary surgery on the beating heart without cardiopulmonary bypass has led to increasing interest in ultra-fast track anesthesia, allowing extubation of the patient in the operating theater. The techniques described to date combined general anesthesia with thoracic epidural analgesia. We report the routine application of a technique that allows immediate extubation in the majority of patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting without thoracic epidural analgesia. METHODS: Fast-track anesthesia using an ultra-shortacting opiate remifentanil, without epidural catheter insertion, was used in 160 unselected patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (aged 43 to 83 years, mean 65 years). There were an average of 2.2 bypass procedures per patient, with the left internal mammary artery used in 93%. Contraindications to immediate extubation were (except for failure to meet standard extubation criteria) hemodynamic instability and persistent bleeding at the end of operation. Satisfactory postoperative pain control was achieved by continuous remifentanil (0.0125 to 0.05 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)). RESULTS: Operating theater extubation within 10 minutes of the end of operation was feasible in 150 patients (94%). Five patients (3%) were extubated within 2 hours, and the remaining 5 patients (3%) were converted to standard anesthesia. There were no deaths during hospitalization. Major complications included myocardial infarction and transient ischemic attacks (2 patients each). No pulmonary complications were seen. Episodes of atrial fibrillation occurred in 21% of the patients undergoing operation. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate extubation is possible in most patients after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting even without thoracic epidural analgesia. We believe this type of less invasive cardiac anesthesia is safe and promising.     

High thoracic epidural anesthesia for off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of high thoracic epidural anesthesia combined with sevoflurane for off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery and to evaluate the postoperative pain control, side effects, and perioperative hemodynamics. DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. SETTING: A university teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred six consecutive patients receiving thoracic epidural combined with sevoflurane. INTERVENTION: From November 1999, the patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting were offered the epidural-inhalation anesthetic approach. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Insertion of the epidural catheter was successful in all but 2 patients; 1 bloody tap occurred and the dura was never punctured, although 1 patient presented with postoperative paraplegia. An emergency spinal cord nuclear magnetic resonance excluded signs of medullary compression caused by epidural or spinal hematoma. Visual analog scale scores for pain during the first 24-hour period were < 2 in all patients. Mean time to extubation was 4.6 +/- 2.9 hours. The average intensive care unit stay was 1.5 +/- 0.8 days. Incidences of perioperative myocardial infarction, myocardial ischemia, and atrial fibrillation were 2.8%, 7.5%, and 10.6%, respectively. Two patients died: 1 from multiorgan failure and the other from myocardial infarction. Heart rate, mean arterial pressure, cardiac index, and systemic vascular resistance were not affected by thoracic epidural alone. Mean arterial pressure and cardiac index decreased (p < 0.05) when general anesthesia was induced and remained stable thereafter. Neither heart rate nor systemic vascular resistance changed from baseline during operation. CONCLUSIONS: Thoracic epidural as an adjunct to general anesthesia is a feasible technique in off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. It induces intense postoperative analgesia and does not compromise central hemodynamics.     

Thoracic epidural anesthesia improves outcome after breast surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The authors' objective was to compare the outcomes, including the incidence of nausea and vomiting and the time until discharge to home, of patients undergoing general anesthesia and thoracic epidural anesthesia for oncologic breast procedures. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: General anesthesia is the traditional anesthetic technique used in oncologic breast procedures. In March 1993, the authors initiated the use of high thoracic epidural anesthesia for patients undergoing oncologic breast surgery and reconstructive procedures. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was undertaken of 136 operations performed by one surgeon (T.J.E.) at Brigham and Women's Hospital. A chi square analysis was used to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing general anesthesia and thoracic epidural anesthesia. RESULTS: Compared with general anesthesia, thoracic epidural anesthesia was associated with a statistically significant earlier hospital discharge (p = 0.01). For quadrantectomy/axillary node dissection procedures, 20 of 39 patients (51%) having thoracic epidural anesthesia were discharged on the operative day versus 7 of 32 patients (22%) in the general anesthesia group. Furthermore, 8 of 39 patients (20%) in the thoracic epidural group experienced nausea and/or vomiting during their hospital stay versus 18 of 32 patients (56%) in the general anesthesia group (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Thoracic epidural anesthesia is a safe technique not associated with neurologic or respiratory complications. The use of thoracic epidural anesthesia for breast surgery could improve patients recovery and reduce the cost of these procedures.     

术前静脉注射帕瑞昔布钠对胸外科手术病人术后镇痛效果的影响

目的 探讨术前静脉注射帕瑞昔布钠对胸外科手术病人术后镇痛效果的影响.方法 拟在全身麻醉联合胸段硬膜外阻滞下行胸外科手术病人90例,年龄38～76岁,身高154～181 cm,体重44～82 kg,ASA分级Ⅰ～Ⅲ级.按随机数字表法分为3组(n=30):A组切皮前30 min静脉注射生理盐水2 ml;B组拔除气管导管后静脉注射帕瑞昔布钠40 mg(生理盐水稀释至2 ml);C组切皮前30 min静脉注射帕瑞昔布钠40 mg.经T6,7行硬膜外阻滞,采用舒芬太尼-维库溴铵-异丙酚行麻醉诱导和维持.术后均采用0.125%罗哌卡因和舒芬太尼0.5ug/ml行PCEA,维持VAS评分≤3分.于术后4、12、24、48 h时行BCS舒适度评分,记录术中和术后48 h内阿片类镇痛药用量、不良反应的发生情况.结果 与A组比较,B组和C组术后48 h内舒芬太尼用量减少(P＜0.05),B组术后4 h时BCS舒适度评分升高,C组术后各时点BCS舒适度评分升高,术中舒芬太尼用量减少(P＜0.05).与B组比较,C组BCS舒适度评分升高,术中及术后48 h内舒芬太尼用量减少(P＜0.05).三组不良反应发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 术前静脉注射帕瑞昔布钠40 mg可减少胸外科手术病人围术期阿片类镇痛药物用量.     

Conscious cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass using thoracic epidural anesthesia without endotracheal general anesthesia

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of thoracic epidural anesthesia as an alternative technique to general anesthesia in patients undergoing cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass. DESIGN: A prospective study. SETTING: Tertiary referral heart hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven patients underwent cardiac surgical procedures requiring cardiopulmonary bypass under thoracic epidural anesthesia from February to April 2004. INTERVENTIONS: An epidural catheter was inserted at C7 to T2 intervertebral space on the day before the operation. Subsequently, cardiac surgery was performed using cardiopulmonary bypass. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The midsternotomy approach was used in all the patients. Anticoagulation was achieved with 300 units/kg of heparin. Under normothermic cardiopulmonary bypass, 6 patients underwent closure of atrial septal defect, 3 underwent valve replacements, and 2 underwent coronary artery bypass surgery combined with valve replacements. Soon after establishing cardiopulmonary bypass, all but 1 patient developed apnea, which was reversed after termination of cardiopulmonary bypass. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time was 102 +/- 28 minutes, the aortic cross-clamp time was 58 +/- 28 minutes, and the total duration of surgery was 229 +/- 64 minutes. There was no mortality or morbidity in this series. CONCLUSION: Cardiac surgical procedures requiring cardiopulmonary bypass may be performed under thoracic epidural anesthesia, without endotracheal general anesthesia.     

Delayed emergence process does not result in a lower incidence of emergence agitation after sevoflurane anesthesia in children

BACKGROUND: Emergence agitation (EA) is more frequent after sevoflurane anesthesia than other inhalational agents but the etiology remains unclear. We investigated whether the EA after sevoflurane anesthesia is related to rapid emergence. METHODS: Eighty-five patients, aged 1-7 years, undergoing elective urology surgery were studied. After induction, anesthesia was maintained with 2.0-2.5% sevoflurane and 50% N(2)O. BIS was monitored continuously throughout surgery and emergence. At the end of surgery, the children were randomly assigned to one of two groups: group I, immediate cessation of sevoflurane; or group G, gradual decrease of sevoflurane with the rate of 0.1%.min(-1). Emergence agitation score was recorded during recovery. RESULTS: Times from immediate cessation or start of decrease of sevoflurane to BIS 70, 80, 90 and extubation were significantly longer in group G. The incidence of severe agitation (score > or =3) was not significantly different between group I and group G: which were 35.7% and 32.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Prolonged recovery did not reduce the incidence of EA following sevoflurane anesthesia in children.     

Epidural anesthesia in patients undergoing thoracic surgery

Epidural anesthesia has been reported to exert beneficial effects in surgical procedures. Over the past 3 years at the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Washington, DC, thoracic surgical procedures have been done using a combined technique of epidural anesthesia with light general anesthesia. A retrospective review of this experience from January 1984 to November 1987 was done in 90 consecutive patients. Postoperative extubation of patients was accomplished immediately in 32%, within 1 hour in 34%, within 3 hours in 28%, within 18 hours in 4%, and was prolonged in only 1% of patients. Mortality was 2% and morbidity was 3%. This analysis indicates that the technique of epidural anesthesia with light general anesthesia provided satisfactory anesthesia with low mortality and morbidity in a high-risk group of patients undergoing surgery.     

Levobupivacaine versus racemic bupivacaine for thoracic and upper lumbar epidural anesthesia-analgesia in children

OBJECTIVES: We compared levobupivacaine to bupivacaine for epidural analgesia for thoracic or upper abdominal surgery in children. Our working hypothesis was that at equivalent doses levobupivacaine and bupivacaine behave in the same way. MATERIAL AND METHODS: ASA 1-4 patients between the ages of 5 and 16 years were randomized to a levobupivacaine or a bupivacaine group. After general anesthesia was induced, we inserted a thoracic or upper lumbar epidural catheter and administered a dose of 0.25% bupivacaine or levobupivacaine (1 mgxkg(-1)) while maintaining general anesthesia. Analgesia was provided with an epidural infusion of 0.125% bupivacaine or levobupivacaine with fentanyl. Fentanyl was used as a perioperative rescue analgesic and metamizole magnesium as a postoperative rescue analgesic. The epidural infusion was reduced by 25% each day beginning on the second day. We analyzed hemodynamic and respiratory variables, rescue analgesia, time until extubation and discharge from the recovery unit, complications associated with the technique, adverse effects, and degree of comfort achieved. RESULTS: We studied 64 patients; 33 received levobupivacaine and 31 bupivacaine. Mean (SD) duration of recovery unit stay was significantly longer in the bupivacaine group (4.2 [0.99] days) than in the levobupivacaine group (35 [0.6] days; P<.05). Significantly more patients needed perioperative rescue analgesia in the levobupivacaine group (n=6 [18.18%]) than in the bupivacaine group (n=3 [9.67%]; P<.01). After 48 hours, the need for postoperative rescue analgesia was significantly lower with levobupivacaine (P<.01). Motor block was significantly greater with bupivacaine (P<05). Adverse effects and complications included 2 cases of persistent bradycardia and 1 case of dural puncture with no subsequent clinical manifestations. CONCLUSIONS: This experience with epidural anesthesia for thoracic and upper abdominal surgery showed levobupivacaine and racemic bupivacaine to have similar profiles. Levobupivacaine, which is less toxic, could be used to replace bupivacaine in children.