异丙酚应用于结肠镜检查治疗术中的效果

目的　研究应用异丙酚作镇静麻醉用于结肠镜检查治疗术中的安全性、有效性和不良反应。方法　麻醉组 3 16例给予异丙酚静脉注射麻醉镇静结肠镜检查治疗 ,对照组 14 2例常规进行结肠镜诊疗 ,比较两组结肠镜操作时间及患者反应 ,观察麻醉组清醒时间及检查前、中、后血压、心率和血氧饱和度变化。结果　麻醉组 3 16例中 3 15例顺利完成检查 ,成功率 99.7% ,对照组 14 2例 ,13 6例完成检查 ,成功率为 95 8% ,两组比较有显著性差异 (P <0 .0 5)。麻醉组结肠镜到达回盲部的平均时间为 7 3± 1.4min ,对照为 12 .5± 1.6min(P <0 .0 5)。麻醉组患者清醒时间为 1min～ 8min。操作过程中均见一过性血压和心率下降 ,但检查结束后又恢复到原来水平。对照组操作过程中均有不同程度的血压升高 ,心率加快 ;两组操作前、中、后的SpO2 值无显著性差异 (P >0 .0 5)。结论　应用异丙酚作镇静麻醉于结肠镜检查治疗术安全有效 ,操作时间缩短 ,其不良反应明显低于常规结肠镜操作     

静脉麻醉在内镜逆行胰胆管造影中的应用

背景：内镜逆行胰胆管造影（ERCP）是一种微创技术，但相当一部分患者仍对其操作过程难以耐受。目的：探讨静脉麻醉在ERCP中的镇静作用及其临床实用性。方法：57例接受ERCP诊治的患者分为两组：麻醉组25例，在咪达唑仑、异丙酚和芬太尼静脉麻醉下行ERCP；非麻醉组32例，ERCP术前予安定镇静。比较两组患者检查前后和操作过程中生命体征的变化，分别以操作过程评分和Ramsay镇静评分评价操作的难易程度和患者的镇静程度。结果：麻醉组与非麻醉组的ERCP成功率无显著差异。麻醉组的操作过程评分和Ramsay镇静评分均显著优于非麻醉组（P〈0．01）。两组术中心率和血压较术前有显著变化（P〈0．05）．但手术前后脉搏血氧饱和度（SpO2）的变化无统计学意义结论：静脉麻醉在ERCP操作中镇静效果显著．患者耐受性好，在治疗性ERCP中尤其有利于医师操作。     

清醒镇静技术在气管镜诊疗中的应用

目的 观察清醒镇静技术在气管镜诊疗中应用的临床效果.方法 统计气管镜检查患者380例,其中利多卡因雾化吸入麻醉(常规组)200例,利多卡因雾化吸入加芬太尼注射液及咪唑安定注射液静脉推注(清醒镇静组)180例,比较两组咽喉部麻醉效果,观察清醒镇静组患者镇静效果.结果 清醒镇静组患者的局部麻醉效果显著优于常规组(P<0.01),未出现明显的心血管及呼吸系统副作用.结论 清醒镇静技术用于气管镜诊疗能显著改善患者局部麻醉效果,且无显著不良反应.     

低浓度可调笑氧混合气体清醒镇静在胃镜检查中的应用

胃镜检查是上消化道疾病诊治的常用手段.丙泊酚静脉麻醉虽能减轻患者镜检痛苦,使胃镜检查作为上消化道疾病的检查方法得到普及,但是静脉麻醉需要专业麻醉师操作和监护,且一些不良反应如呼吸心跳骤停、中枢抑制等越来越受到临床重视.近年来出现的低浓度笑氧混合气体（笑气体积百分比浓度≤70%）清醒镇静,因其操作简便、不良反应少、术后意识恢复较快、费用相对低廉等优点在临床上得以推广,但在胃镜检查中的使用国内尚未见相关报道[1-2].2009年11月至2010年2月我院内镜中心在低浓度笑氧混合气体清醒镇静下行胃镜检查300例,现将结果报道如下.     

内镜下食管静脉曲张套扎术治疗肝硬化食管静脉曲张56例疗效观察

目的探讨食管镜下食管静脉曲张套扎术(EVL)治疗肝硬化食管静脉曲张的疗效。方法食管静脉曲张患者56例,其中急性食管静脉出血32例;无临床症状者24例,均为中重度食管静脉曲张,为一二级预防者。56例均行EVL,术后4~6周评价疗效,观察术后并发症发生情况。结果急性出血32例中止血成功31例(96.87%),72 h内止血失败1例(3.12%),术后72 h~6周4例(12.5%)出血复发;24例无临床症状者未发生静脉破裂出血。术后4~6周50例获得随访,复查胃镜,静脉曲张根除35例(70%),基本消失15例(30%)。56例中,2例术后3 d出血复发,其中急性食管静脉曲张出血患者1例,重度静脉曲张一级预防者1例,经及时扩容、制酸、降门脉压等药物治疗后好转,后再次行EVL止血。术后出现胸骨后疼痛12例,吞咽困难5例,恶心不适4例,发热5例,未做特殊处理,自行缓解。无术后食管穿孔、狭窄者。结论 EVL治疗肝硬化食管静脉曲张疗效较好。术中规范操作、加强围术期管理可提高手术效果并减少并发症。     

上消化道出血胃镜检查中应用丙泊酚静脉麻醉的价值

目的观察上消化道出血患者行胃镜检查采用丙泊酚静脉麻醉的价值。方法选取因上消化道出血到本院行胃镜检查的90例病人,将其随机分为两组。对照组行常规麻醉方法,观察组辅以丙泊酚静脉麻醉,观察、记录两组患者在检查过程中的镇静效果、不良反应、检查时间及检查后患者的满意度。结果观察组的镇静效果更好;其不良反应发生率低于对照组,观察组的总满意度为93.48%,高于对照组的75.00%,两组间的差异有统计学意义(P0.05);两组在操作时间、成功率上无明显差异(P0.05)。两组90例中主要的出血原因为食管胃底静脉曲张43例(47.78%)、消化性溃疡21例(23.33%)、贲门及胃恶性肿瘤15例(16.67%)、急性胃黏膜病变7例(7.78%)、dieulafoy溃疡3例(3.33%)、贲门撕裂伤1例(1.11%)。结论在胃镜检查时辅以丙泊酚静脉麻醉可减少患者的痛苦,是一种舒适、安全的检查方法,具有很好的临床应用价值。     

对比笑气清醒镇静镇痛技术与丙泊酚静脉麻醉用于胃镜检查安全性及有效性分析

目的探讨笑气清醒镇静镇痛技术和丙泊酚静脉麻醉技术在胃镜检查中的安全性及有效性,对比两者在胃镜检查中的镇静镇痛效果以及诊疗后的不良反应的发生率,研究在胃镜检查中,笑气清醒镇静镇痛技术和丙泊酚静脉麻醉技术的临床价值.方法选取2015-09/2016-05我院接收的400例要求接受无痛胃镜检查的患者作为研究对象,入选的患者符合ASA分级标准中第一级和第二级,患者接受麻醉以及接受手术的耐受能力较好.随机将400例患者分为丙泊酚组200例和笑气组200例,丙泊酚组接受胃镜检查时给予丙泊酚静脉麻醉,笑气组采取笑气清醒镇静镇痛技术.观察和记录患者的心率、血压和脉搏血氧饱和度,研究分析笑气和丙泊酚的镇静镇痛麻醉效果.结果丙泊酚组患者在胃镜检查前和检查后的心率、血压和脉搏血氧饱和度均比胃镜检查中的含量偏高,且差异具有统计学意义(P0.05).笑气组患者的心率、血压和脉搏血氧饱和度在检查中比检查前稍有增高,且差异具有统计学意义(P0.05).统计结果显示,丙泊酚静脉麻醉在胃镜检查过程中对于患者的心肺具有显著的抑制作用,笑气对于患者的心肺功能没有显著的抑制作用.笑气组的不良反应以是恶心干呕为主占13%,而心率过缓、低血压、低氧血症等症状所占的比率明显低于丙泊酚组,且差异具有统计学意义(P0.05).笑气组患者的操作时间明显比丙泊酚组患者较长,且药物的起效时间笑气组明显比丙泊酚组较长,但差异具有统计学意义(P0.05).但丙泊酚组的恢复时间以及患者的留院时间明显比笑气组的留院时间和恢复时间显著较多,经统计结果分析丙泊酚静脉麻醉的镇静起效时间要比笑气清醒镇静镇痛技术的起效时间更长,且差异具有统计学意义(P0.05).结论笑气清醒镇静镇痛技术能够快速有效的发挥镇静镇痛的效果,但是不会引起患者的深度和长时间的麻醉,能够有效地缩短患者的恢复时间.笑气清醒镇静镇痛技术和丙泊酚静脉用于胃镜无痛检查是安全有效的,相比于丙泊酚静脉注射镇静作用,笑气清醒镇静镇痛技术的安全性更好.     

芬太尼和丙泊酚复合静脉麻醉在无痛支气管镜检查中的临床应用

目的探讨芬太尼和丙泊酚复合静脉麻醉在支气管镜检查中的安全性和有效性。方法A组40例患者在芬太尼和丙泊酚复合静脉麻醉后行支气管镜检查,B组40例患者常规局部麻醉在清醒状态下行支气管镜检查,两组同时监测记录各时点的收缩压、舒张压、心率、呼吸及指脉氧的变化,并观察其不适反应和调查痛苦记忆。结果A组40例均顺利完成检查,与术前比较,术中各期收缩压、舒张压、心率和呼吸略增加,但差异无显著性(P0.05)。B组术中各期收缩压和舒张压明显上升,心率和呼吸增快,血氧饱和度下降,与术前比较,差异有显著性(P0.05)。A组术后不能回忆当时情景,无不适感。B组80%患者出现不同程度的反应性症状,有不同程度的痛苦记忆。结论芬太尼和丙泊酚复合静脉麻醉运用于支气管镜检查中具有安全,无痛苦,心肺抑制等副作用少等特点,患者易于接受,值得在临床支气管镜检查中推广。     

麻醉和镇静术在225例无痛结肠镜检查中的临床分析

目的 比较麻醉和镇静术对接受结肠镜检查患者的安全性及治疗效果.方法 225例于我院行结肠镜检查的患者,随机接受丙泊酚伍用芬太尼麻醉或咪唑安定清醒镇静诊疗,比较两组患者结肠镜检查过程中血压、心率、血氧饱和度变化情况及呻吟、肢动等不良反应,并追踪观察患者术后清醒时间及不良事件的发生率.结果 麻醉组患者呻吟、肢动发生率显著低于清醒镇静组;清醒镇静组血压、心率、血氧饱和度下降显著低于麻醉组.两组患者给药时间、术中及术后不良事件的发生率无显著差异.结论 麻醉及清醒镇静术均可有效缓解结肠镜检查所致的不良反应,无严重不良事件发生.     

国产胃镜与进口胃镜在食管曲张静脉套扎治疗中的比较

目的比较国产胃镜与进口胃镜在食管曲张静脉套扎(esophageal variceal ligation,EVL)治疗中的效果差异。方法选取138例肝硬化食管静脉曲张患者分成两组,分别以国产胃镜及进口胃镜施EVL术,收集两组患者各项临床资料,同时记录其接受EVL术时平均操作时间、图像清晰度、并发症发生率以及平均住院日等数据并进行统计分析。结果利用国产胃镜与进口胃镜分别进行EVL术,两组患者均无出现出血、穿孔及死亡等严重并发症。国产胃镜治疗组与进口胃镜治疗组在内镜操作时间、患者平均住院日及内镜图像清晰度方面差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论利用国产胃镜进行EVL术可以达到与进口胃镜相当的操作便捷性、安全性及有效性。     

局部麻醉伴或不伴芬太尼行支气管镜检查的对照研究

目的 比较局部麻醉伴或不伴芬太尼下进行常规支气管镜检查时的耐受度、满意度及安全性.方法 将行常规支气管镜检查的60例患者随机分为局部麻醉不伴芬太尼镇静镇痛(A组)和局部麻醉伴芬太尼镇静镇痛(B组),每组30例.通过术中记录生命体征及不良事件观察操作的安全性,术后用视觉模拟评分(VAS)观察患者对操作的耐受度和满意度.结果 两组患者术中及术后心率差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05),而两组收缩压及SaO2差异无明显统计学意义(P＞o.05).对于操作过程中整体不适,A组患者术中比B组患者明显感觉到不适(P＜o.05),明显感觉到呼吸困难(P＜0.05),表达更多疼痛(P＜0.05),但两组患者术中咳嗽、恶心及再次检查意愿差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).A组1例患者和B组2例患者出现低氧血症,是短暂性的,没有生命危险.结论 行常规支气管镜检查的患者采用局部麻醉联合芬太尼静脉麻醉可减少术中不适、呼吸困难及疼痛,安全性较高.     

Topical pharyngeal anesthesia does not improve upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in conscious sedated patients

OBJECTIVE: We undertook this study to determine whether topical pharyngeal anesthesia with conscious sedation is superior to conscious sedation alone, with respect to procedure performance or tolerance in patients undergoing diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: Ninety-five patients undergoing diagnostic upper endoscopy with conscious sedation were randomized to receive either topical pharyngeal anesthesia with 2% tetracaine/14% benzocaine spray or no pharyngeal anesthesia. Conscious sedation was achieved in all patients using intravenous midazolam and meperidine. Patients were asked to rate their pretest anxiety, comfort during endoscopy, recollection of the procedure, and willingness to undergo subsequent examinations using a 100-mm visual analog scale. Additionally, they were asked to estimate procedure duration and rate their tolerance for topical pharyngeal anesthesia. All examinations were performed by two endoscopists who were blinded to whether or not patients had received pharyngeal anesthesia. Endoscopists were asked to determine whether they believed that patients had received topical pharyngeal anesthesia and to estimate ease of esophageal intubation and procedure performance using a 100-mm visual analog scale. Procedure duration and doses of midazolam and meperidine were measured. RESULTS: The two groups did not differ with respect to age, gender, and previous endoscopic history. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to pretest anxiety, procedural comfort, and willingness to undergo subsequent examinations. Patients receiving topical pharyngeal anesthesia rated it as moderately unpleasant. Endoscopists were able to discriminate patients who received pharyngeal anesthesia from those who did not with a sensitivity of 0.73 and a specificity of 0.59. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to ease of intubation, procedure performance, procedure duration, and dosing of midazolam or meperidine. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing diagnostic upper endoscopy using intravenous midazolam and meperidine, the use of topical pharyngeal anesthesia does not improve patient tolerance or procedure performance. Elimination of this agent in the performance of diagnostic upper endoscopy will save time and money without adversely affecting patient care or outcomes.     

Lidocaine lollipop as single-agent anesthesia in upper GI endoscopy

BACKGROUND: Conscious sedation is usually achieved during EGD by a combination of intravenous benzodiazepines and opiates; however, these have potential serious adverse effects. The addition of topical oropharyngeal anesthetics such as lidocaine may be useful. Recent data suggest that the administration of topical lidocaine by means of a lollipop is effective for endotracheal intubation and bronchoscopy. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a lidocaine lollipop as single-agent anesthesia for EGD and to determine whether its use reduces the need for intravenous sedatives and analgesics. DESIGN: Single-blinded, randomized, prospective study. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: 50 patients undergoing diagnostic EGD. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to either lidocaine lollipop or lidocaine spray. Intravenous meperidine and midazolam were administered during the procedure as needed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The success and safety of local anesthesia by lidocaine lollipop in addition to the need for intravenous sedation. RESULTS: Patients were equally randomized between the lollipop and the spray groups. The lollipop group had less gag reflex, accommodated scope introduction more, and tolerated the procedure better. Thirty-two percent of patients receiving the lollipop required sedation compared with 96% of patients in the spray group (P < .001). The majority in the lollipop group were satisfied with their mode of anesthesia compared with the spray group. CONCLUSIONS: Lidocaine lollipop is a promising form of local oropharyngeal anesthesia for EGD. Its use resulted in sparing the use of intravenous sedation. It is well tolerated and safe and may be particularly important in the elderly, patients with comorbidities, and office-based endoscopy.     

Prospective evaluation of anesthetic technique for anorectal surgery

PURPOSE: Deep intravenous sedation plus local anesthesia for anorectal surgery in the prone position is used frequently at our institution, but is not widely accepted because of concerns regarding airway management. The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of this anesthetic technique for anorectal surgery. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively on 413 consecutive patients (mean age, 47 years; mean weight, 80 kg) undergoing anorectal surgical procedures. RESULTS: Of the 389 patients who underwent anorectal procedures in the prone position, 260 (67 percent) received intravenous sedation plus local anesthesia, 125 (32 percent) received regional anesthesia (spinal or epidural), and 4 (1 percent) received general endotracheal anesthesia. Of the 24 patients who underwent anorectal procedures in the lithotomy position, 13 (54 percent) received intravenous sedation plus local anesthesia, 2 (8 percent) received regional anesthesia, 2 (8 percent) received general endotracheal anesthesia, and 7 (29 percent) received mask inhalational anesthesia. Forty-two adverse events attributable to the anesthetic occurred in 18 patients: nausea and vomiting (n = 17), transient hypotension, bradycardia, or arrhythmia (n = 8), transient hypoxia or hypoventilation (n = 7), urinary retention (n = 6), and severe patient discomfort (n = 2). These complications occurred in 4 percent (10/273) of patients receiving intravenous sedation plus local anesthesia and in 6 percent (8/127) of patients receiving regional anesthesia. Two of 260 patients (0.8 percent) receiving intravenous sedation plus local anesthesia in the prone position were rolled supine before completing the surgical procedure. Recovery time before discharge for patients treated on an ambulatory basis was significantly shorter for those patients undergoing intravenous sedation plus local anesthesia (79 +/- 34 minutes, n = 174) than for patients undergoing regional anesthesia (161 +/- 63 minutes, n = 45; P < 0.001, t-test). CONCLUSION: Intravenous sedation plus local anesthesia in the prone position is safe and effective for anorectal surgery and offers potential cost savings by decreasing recovery room time for outpatient procedures.     

Sedation, topical pharyngeal anesthesia and cardiorespiratory safety during gastroscopy

GOALS: In a prospective, double-blind study, we examined the effects of routine sedation and pharyngeal anesthesia on cardiorespiratory parameters during gastroscopy. BACKGROUND: Intravenous sedation and topical pharyngeal anesthesia are used to alleviate the discomfort during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Cardiorespiratory changes during gastroscopy are common. STUDY: Two hundred fifty two consecutive outpatients undergoing gastroscopy were assigned into 4 groups: (1) sedation with intravenous midazolam and placebo throat spray (midazolam group), (2) placebo sedation and pharyngeal anesthesia with lidocaine throat spray (lidocaine group), (3) placebo sedation and placebo throat spray (placebo group), and (4) no intravenous cannula nor throat spray (control group). Arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2), systolic and diastolic blood pressure and continuous electrocardiogram were recorded before, during, and after the endoscopic procedure. RESULTS: Gastroscopy increased heart rate in all study groups. Premedication with intravenous midazolam or lidocaine spray alleviated this rise (P<0.001, repeated measures analysis of variance) and decreased the incidence of tachycardia. Similarly, sedation with midazolam or topical pharyngeal anesthesia decreased the rise in systolic blood pressure (P<0.001). Midazolam produced lower SaO2 values during gastroscopy compared with lidocaine, placebo or control groups (P<0.001). However, episodes of desaturation (SaO2 相似文献   

Sedation or general anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)

Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is nowadays a routine therapy for elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and high perioperative risk. With growing experience, further development of the devices, and the expansion to “intermediate-risk” patients, there is increasing interest in performing this procedure under conscious sedation (TAVI-S) rather than the previously favoured approach of general anesthesia (TAVI-GA). The proposed benefits of TAVI-S include; reduced procedure time, shorter intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, reduced need for intraprocedural vasopressor support, and the potential to perform the procedure without the direct presence of an anesthetist for cost-saving reasons. To date, no randomized trial data exists. We reviewed 13 non-randomized studies/registries reporting data from 6,718 patients undergoing TAVI (3,227 performed under sedation). Patient selection, study methods, and endpoints have differed considerably between published studies. Reported rates of in-hospital and longer-term mortality are similar for both groups. Up to 17% of patients undergoing TAVI-S require conversion to general anesthesia during the procedure, primarily due to vascular complications, and urgent intubation is frequently associated with hemodynamic instability. Procedure related factors, including hypotension, may compound preexisting age-specific renal impairment and enhance the risk of acute kidney injury. Hypotonia of the hypopharyngeal muscles in elderly patients, intraprocedural hypercarbia, and certain anesthetic drugs, may increase the aspiration risk in sedated patients. General anesthesia and conscious sedation have both been used successfully to treat patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI with similar reported short and long-term mortality outcomes. The authors believe that the significant incidence of complications and unplanned conversion to general anesthesia during TAVI-S mandates the start-to-finish presence of an experienced cardiac anesthetist in order to optimize patient outcomes. Good quality randomized data is needed to determine the optimal anesthetic regimen for patients undergoing TAVI.     

Total intravenous anesthesia using propofol and ketamine for ambulatory gynecologic laparoscopy

Laparoscopy under total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with spontaneous respiration is a commonly encountered procedure in ambulatory gynecologic surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of TIVA using propofol and ketamine, compared with endotracheal inhalational general anesthesia (EIGA) for ambulatory gynecologic laparoscopy. Fifty-eight female patients, aged 17-48 years, were randomly allocated into two groups. Group 1 (TIVA) (n = 28) received propofol at the induction of anesthesia followed by propofol infusion for maintenance. Intravenous ketamine 0.5 mg/kg was administered before operation for anesthetic effect. Natural airway and spontaneous breathing were then maintained in patients. Group 2 (n = 30) received EIGA with isoflurane under controlled ventilation. We found that the two groups demonstrated similar trend characters of pH and PaCO2 during operation and in recovery room. The incidence of postoperative vomiting was higher in group 2 than in group 1 (30% vs. 7%; p < 0.05). The incidence of intraoperative arrhythmia was higher in group 2 than in group 1 (40% vs. 3%; p < 0.001). Furthermore, the incidence of sore throat was higher in group 2 than in group 1 (47% vs. 7%; p < 0.001). We conclude that TIVA with spontaneous respiration is suitable for ambulatory gynecologic laparoscopy.     

70岁以上老年患者静脉麻醉下胃肠镜检查的安全性

目的评价芬太尼和异丙酚静脉麻醉在≥70岁老年患者胃肠镜检查中的安全性。方法回顾分析826例采用静脉麻醉下胃肠镜检查且年龄≥70岁老年患者的临床资料,按年龄分成2组：A组,70～80岁,618例,其中接受胃镜检查者342例,肠镜检查者276例;13组,〉80岁,208例,其中接受胃镜检查者112例,肠镜检查者96例。另随机抽取同期接受静脉麻醉下胃肠镜检查的年龄〈70岁的患者600例（胃镜检查者400例,肠镜检查者200例）作对照。总结分析胃肠镜检查情况,比较相同检查方式下各组血压、心率、血氧饱和度（SpO2）变化情况以及不良反应发生情况。结果所有接受静脉麻醉患者均未发生胃肠镜检查穿孔及死亡等严重事件,亦无一例因麻醉并发症终止胃肠镜检查,均能达到胃肠镜检查的满意镇静程度。对应检查方式下,随年龄增加异丙酚用量均减小：胃镜检查时,异丙酚平均剂量A组为（54．22±21．36）mg,B组为（40．22±12．46）mg,对照组为（86．44±34．26）mg;肠镜检查时,A组为（82．56±40．64）mg,B组为（45．36±15．44）mg,对照组为（102．23±46．32）mg。相同检查方式下各组心率、血压变化程度不大,组内前后两观察时点比较差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）;但静脉麻醉对老年患者SpO2影响较大,A组和B组共18例出现SpO2〈90％,主要为唾液误吸入气管引起呛咳所致,予面罩呼吸气囊加压吸氧后短期内恢复。结论在严格控制适应证的条件下,适当剂量麻醉药静脉麻醉下老年患者胃肠镜检查是安全的、可行的。     

静脉麻醉与雾化吸入麻醉在无痛纤支镜检查中的应用对比

目的探讨静脉麻醉与雾化吸入麻醉在无痛纤支镜检查中的应用价值。方法选取2005年1月～2010年3月间行纤支镜检查的本院住院病人100例为研究对象。随机分为观察组50例和对照组50例。观察组行静脉麻醉无痛纤支镜检查,对照组性雾化吸入纤支镜检查。结果观察组患者麻醉效果、麻醉情况和术中生命体征监测结果与对照组比较,均有显著性差异(P<0.05)。结论静脉麻醉在无痛纤支镜检查中是一项安全、高效、不良反应少的术前麻醉方式。     

Morbidity and mortality of deep sedation in outpatient bone marrow biopsy

Deep sedation is being provided at an increasing rate for patients undergoing bone marrow biopsy and aspiration (BMBA). The aim of this study was to establish the safety of deep sedation used for adults undergoing BMBA. A nonrandomized database analysis and retrospective review of patient records from January 1997 to December 2000 was performed; 5,811 patients were identified as having undergone their first outpatient BMBA. Outcome measures included 30-day mortality and same-day hospital admission; surrogate measures included need for a surgical procedure or receipt of red blood cells within the 48 hr following the BMBA. Patients who received intravenously administered midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol for maintenance of deep sedation plus infiltration of a local anesthetic (n = 2,604; 45%) comprised the deep sedation group; those who received infiltration of a local anesthetic but no intravenous sedation or analgesia (n = 3,207; 55%) comprised the local anesthesia group. Patients in the deep sedation group compared to those in the local anesthesia group were less likely to die within 30 days (0.69% vs. 1.34%, P = 0.018) and less likely to receive red blood cells (1.27% vs. 2.25%, P = 0.006). No other differences between the groups were found. Although the study was retrospective and nonrandomized, the results suggest that the use of deep sedation for outpatient BMBA is as safe as using local anesthesia.