不同药物用于病人自控镇静的疗效

目的 比较四种不同药物配方用于下腹部或下肢手术硬膜外麻醉中病人自控镇静（PCS）的临床效果。方法 60例下腹部或下肢择期手术病人随机分为四组,每组15例,分别接受丙泊酚（每次10mg,P组）、咪唑安定（每次1mg,M组）、D＋P（每次哌替啶12.5mg 异丙嗪6．25mg,D组）、Innovor（每次氟哌利多1．25mg 芬太尼0．025mg,I组）行PCS,观察生命体征、镇静效果、用药情况及副反应。结果 四组病人中,镇静程度满意的（镇静评分2－4分）,P组为100％（15／15）,M组为93．3％（14／15）,D组及I组均为100％（15／15）,各组间无显著差异（P＞0．05）。病人术中合作、术后满意,无明显副作用。四组病人使用PCS 5分钟后,BP、HR及焦虑程度均有所下降。P组的起效时间最短、清醒过程最快,而D组和I组清醒所需时间较长。M组病人存在着明显的药物顺行性遗忘作用。结论 PCS是一种合理有效的镇静方法。本研究病例的98．3％可通过PCS达到临床理想的镇静效果。其中,丙泊酚镇静效果好,恢复迅速,最适合用于PCS。而对于防止术中知晓方面,咪唑安定是较为理想的选择。虽然本研究中D＋P和Innovor用于术中PCS效果亦尚属满意,但可能引起病人镇静恢复时间延迟。     

复合咪唑安定对丙泊酚靶控输注诱导的影响

目的 观察靶控输注(TCI)丙泊酚麻醉诱导中,维持脑电双频指数(BIS)为50时,复合咪唑安定对丙泊酚靶浓度及血流动力学的影响.方法 40例ASA Ⅰ或Ⅱ级拟行妇科腹腔镜手术病人,随机均分为丙泊酚(P)组和丙泊酚复合咪唑安定(M)组,记录BIS值降至50时的丙泊酚血浆及效应室靶浓度及病人诱导前、BIS值降至50时(诱导后)及气管插管即刻的HR和MAP.结果 当BIS值降至50时,M组丙泊酚的血浆及效应室靶浓度及用量均明显低于P组(P＜0.05或P＜0.01);两组病人诱导后的MAP均较诱导前明显降低(P＜0.01),P组诱导后、气管插管即刻的HR较诱导前明显减慢(P＜0.05或P＜0.01)且明显慢于M组(P＜0.05).结论 以BIS值降至50为指标.TCI丙泊酚诱导时复合咪唑安定可明显降低丙泊酚的血浆及效应室靶浓度;可减轻丙泊酚诱导所致HR减慢,但不能减轻丙泊酚诱导所致血压下降;对插管时血流动力学影响两者相似.     

咪唑安定与丙泊酚对脑电双频指数的影响

目的测定和比较咪唑安定与丙泊酚诱导时半数病人入睡时的脑电双频指数（BIS50）和半数有效量（ED50）。方法选择60例无服用精神药物和镇静催眠药物史、无术前用药的门诊手术病人（ASAⅠ～Ⅱ级），随机均分为咪唑安定组（M组）和丙泊酚组（P组），以半数效量序贯法分别进行咪唑安定与丙泊酚诱导的睡眠观察，以对语言指令和睫毛反射消失为入睡指标，同时记录BIS的变化。对取得的数据以直线回归的方法和加权均数法分别求得咪唑安定、丙泊酚的BIS50和ED50。结果咪唑安定诱导后，术峤病人与入睡病人的BIS值均较用药前的基础值明显下降，但下降幅度在两类病人之间差异无统计学意义，BISso和EDso分别为：77．02（95％可信区间为：71．08～85．86）和0．1237mg／kg（95％可信区间为：0．0990-0．1540mg／kg）。丙泊酚诱导时未睡病人的BIS值下降不明显，而入睡病人的BIS值显著下降，两者之间差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。丙泊酚的BIS50和ED50分别是79．17（95％可信区间为：72．08～88．55）和1．0192mg／kg（95％可信区间为：0．9400～1．1480mg／kg）。结论咪唑安定和丙泊酚对BIS的影响有较大的差异。与丙泊酚比较，BIS值与咪唑安定催眠效果的相关性小于丙泊酚。     

双频指数和听觉诱发电位在监测麻醉深度中的价值

目的　评估脑电双频指数 (BIS)和中潜伏期听觉诱发电位 (MLAEP)在监测麻醉深度中的价值。方法　 2 1例择期手术患者随机分为Ⅰ组 (对照组 ,n =11)和Ⅱ组 (咪唑安定组 ,n =10 ) ,输入复方乳酸钠液 10ml/kg后 ,以 0 4mg·kg-1·min-1的速度静脉推注丙泊酚 2mg/kg ,在诱导第 4分钟注入维库溴铵 0 1mg/kg、芬太尼 2 μg/kg ,Ⅱ组同时注入咪唑安定 0 0 4mg/kg。记录OAA/S镇静评分、收缩压、舒张压、心率、BIS和反映MLAEP的ARX指数 (ARX Index ,AAI)的基础值 ,以及诱导插管时每分钟的数值。结果　 (1)AAI反应时间较BIS显著缩短 (P <0 0 5 ) ;(2 )OAA/S镇静评分与BIS、AAI显著相关 (r =0 86 0 2、0 85 5 0 ,P <0 0 1) ;(3)Ⅱ组注入咪唑安定后 1分钟 ,AAI较Ⅰ组显著下降 (P <0 0 5 ) ;2分钟后 ,BIS较Ⅰ组显著下降 (P =0 0 0 1) ;(4)Ⅰ组的插管反应大于Ⅱ组 ,插管即刻AAI差异显著 (P =0 0 1) ,插管后 1分钟BIS差异显著 (P <0 0 5 ) ;Ⅱ组在插管前后AAI和BIS均无显著差异。结论　 (1)AAI和BIS均能反映镇静程度和插管反应 ,但AAI反应更快 ,趋于实时监测 ;(2 )联合应用咪唑安定诱导可以抑制插管反应     

咪唑安定对丙泊酚诱导需要量的影响

目的　评估咪唑安定预先给药对减少丙泊酚需要量的影响。方法　ASAⅠ～Ⅱ择期手术病人 1 2 0例 ,随机分为丙泊酚组 (A组 )、咪唑安定 0 0 4mg/kg +丙泊酚组 (B组 )和咪唑安定 0 0 6mg/kg +丙泊酚组 (C组 ) ,按丙泊酚剂量每组又分为 4个亚组 :A组分为 0 75、1 1 3、1 6 8和 2 5mg/kg 4个亚组 ;B和C组均分为 0 33、0 5、0 75和 1 1 3mg/kg 4个亚组。A组直接静注丙泊酚 ,B和C组分别静注咪唑安定 0 0 4mg/kg或 0 0 6mg/kg ,6min后静注丙泊酚 ,速度均为1 5mg/s。静注丙泊酚或咪唑安定后 6min内每分钟进行OAA/S评分 ,并记录BIS。结果　 (1 )OAA/S与BIS具有显著等级相关 (r =0 81 9,P <0 0 1 )。三次模型拟合曲线可表示OAA/S与BIS之间的关系 (r =0 6 83,P<0 0 1 )。 (2 )以OAA/S =0分为判断丙泊酚效应指标 ,A组丙泊酚的ED50 和ED95分别为 1 0 9mg/kg和 1 6 4mg/kg ;B组和C组分别使丙泊酚的ED50 下降 5 2 3%和 6 0 5 % ,ED95下降 4 7 6 %和5 1 8%。 (3)静注丙泊酚后 1～ 2min ,BIS下降到最低值。与A组相比 ,B和C组使BIS降至相应值的丙泊酚需要量明显减少 ,同时BIS维持低水平的时间显著延长。结论　预先静注咪唑安定 0 0 4mg/kg可显著减少丙泊酚用量 ,并延长其作用时间     

脑电双频指数反馈调控丙泊酚靶控输注用于妇科手术病人的清醒镇静

目的　探讨脑电双频指数 (BIS)作为丙泊酚靶控输注的反馈控制变量用于硬膜外麻醉病人清醒镇静的可行性。方法　 4 0例ASAⅠ～Ⅱ级拟在硬膜外麻醉下行妇科手术病人 ,随机分为反馈靶控输注组 (反馈组 )和靶控输注组 (靶控组 ) ,每组 2 0例。BIS作为反馈控制变量设定为 80 ,丙泊酚血浆靶浓度设定为 1 7μg/ml,记录并比较两组间的实时BIS值、术中血压下降、呼吸抑制、术中回忆情况、镇静的满意度以及丙泊酚单位标准化使用剂量。结果　反馈组丙泊酚单位标准化使用剂量明显低于靶控组 (P <0 0 1) ;两组间血压下降、呼吸抑制、术中回忆的发生率及镇静的满意率均无显著性差异 (P >0 0 5 )。结论　BIS作为反馈控制变量用于硬膜外麻醉下妇科手术病人的清醒镇静是可行的 ,具有简单易行、安全有效、节约费用的优点。     

反馈靶控输注和自控输注丙泊酚用于硬膜外麻醉病人的镇静

目的 比较反馈靶控输注(TCI)和病人自控镇静(PCS)在硬膜外麻醉下择期手术病人中的应用。方法 选择50例ASAⅠ～Ⅱ级、年龄18～70岁的妇科择期手术病人,随机分成T组(TCI)和P组(PCS),每组25例。硬膜外穿刺成功后,使麻醉平面维持在T6以下,同时连接TCI系统和PCS系统并设置参数。切皮前5min开始系统给药,手术结束前5min停止给药,持续观察脑电双频指数(BIS)、频谱边界频率(SEF)、高频(HF)、低频(LF)的变化,并评定镇静深度(OAA／S评分法)。术毕记录丙泊酚的总用量及按压次数、苏醒时间和手术医师的满意度评分。结果 P组丙泊酚用量明显少于T组(P＜0．01),而各时间点MAP、BIS、SEF、HF、LF、LF／HF、HRV的变化无显著性差异(P＞0．05),两组病人及手术医师的满意度一致(P＞0．05)。结论 PCS和反馈TCI是两种安全有效的镇静方法。     

咪唑安定靶控输注时清醒镇静的临床观察

目的 探讨在腰一硬联合麻醉下用脑电双频指数(BIS)监测靶控输注(TCI)咪唑安定清醒镇静时,咪唑安定适宜的目标血药浓度.方法 选择60例腰一硬麻醉下行妇科手术患者,年龄45～65岁,ASA Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,随机均分为A、B、C三组.A、B、C组咪唑安定血浆靶控浓度分别为30、40、50 ng/ml.记录患者TCI眯唑安定30 min时BIS,同时记录咪唑安定不同血浆靶控浓度下警觉/镇静评分(0AA/S).维持术中BP、HR、SpO2至满意水平,记录术中、术后的感受情况、遗忘程度、麻醉的满意度.结果 A组患者术中BIS为89.5,OAA/S 4～5分.B组患者术中BIS为76.5,OAA/S 3分.C组患者术中BIS为68,OAA/S 1～2分.结论 腰一硬联合麻醉下手术患者咪唑安定以40ng/ml血浆靶控输注BIS在73～80.0AA/S 3分,术中镇静及顺行性遗忘效果好,安全性高,不良反应小,但应注意阻滞效果不完善时患者易引起极度躁动.     

数量化脑电参数对异丙酚、咪唑安定或氯胺酮麻醉病人镇静深度监测的准确性

目的评价脑电图双频谱指数(BIS)、95%边缘频率(95%SEF)对异丙酚、咪唑安定或氯胺酮麻醉病人镇静深度监测的准确性。方法择期行胸、腹部手术病人45例,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,年龄30-59岁,随机分为3组:异丙酚组(P组)、咪唑安定组(M组)和氯胺酮组(K组),每组15例。P、M、K组分别以8、0.5、4mg·kg-1·h-1的速率静脉输注药物,每3min行进行警觉/镇静(OAA/S)评分一次,直到OAA/S评分达1分停止给药。记录每次评分即刻的BIS及95%SEF。分析BIS、95%SEF与OAA/S评分的相关性,计算病人意识消失时BIS50、95%SEF50、相应95%可信区间及BIS、95%SEF预测镇静深度的概率(Pk)。结果P、M组BIS、95%SEF与OAA/S评分间具有相关性,K组BIS和95%SEF与OAA/S评分间无相关性。P、M组BIS50分别为65.9、70.7,但是无法计算K组相应的BIS50和95%SEF50。P、M组BIS和95%SEF的Pk均高于0.5(P<0.01),K组BIS和95%SEF的Px与0.5比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);P组BIS及95%SE'的Pk均高于M组(P<0.05);P、M组BIS的Pk均高于95%SEF的Pk(P<0.05)。结论BIS和95%SEF可以准确地监测异丙酚的镇静深度,对咪唑安定镇静深度监测的准确性稍差,而对氯胺酮镇静深度无法监测,BIS对麻醉药镇静深度监测的准确性较95%SEF高。     

脑电双频指数对镇静深度和血液动力学预测作用的研究

目的　研究脑电双频指数 (BIS)对镇静深度和血液动力学的预测作用。方法　 30例ASAⅠ～Ⅱ级、择期行胸腹部手术患者 ,随机分为丙泊酚组 (P组 )和咪唑安定组 (M组 ) ,每组 15例。以恒定的给药速度 (P组为 8mg·kg 1·h 1,M组为 0 5mg·kg 1·h 1)持续静脉输注 ,每 3分钟行OAA/S评分一次 ,直到OAA/S评分达 1分停止给药。记录评分前即刻的BIS、收缩压 (SBP)、舒张压(DBP)、激发指数 (ACI)。结果　随着镇静加深 ,两组BIS、SBP、DBP、ACI均明显下降 ,而心率 (HR)变化不明显 ;BIS预测OAA/S与SBP、DBP和ACI的预测概率 (Pk)值均有显著性差异 (P <0 0 1) ,而BIS预测HR的Pk值无显著性差异。BIS预测P组的OAA/S、SBP、DBP的Pk值较M组的相同指标的Pk值明显高 ,而BIS预测ACI的Pk值无显著性差异。结论　BIS对麻醉的意识成分变化预测效果较好 ,对血压和心肌收缩性变化也有一定的预测能力 ,但明显较镇静深度预测能力差 ,BIS与心率变化无关。     

右美托咪定、咪唑安定及异丙酚术中镇静比较

目的 比较右美托咪定、咪唑安定及异丙酚在区域麻醉中的镇静作用. 方法 腰-硬联合麻醉下行下肢手术患者75例,ASA Ⅰ～Ⅱ级,随机分为右美托咪定组(D组)、咪唑安定组(M组)与异丙酚组(P组),各25例.分别于麻醉成功后给予右美托咪定、咪唑安定及异丙酚行术中镇静,使镇静/警觉评分(The observer(s) assessment of alertness/sedation scale,OAA/S)达3分或2分.监测血压、心率、血氧饱和度及心电图等生命体征,术后24h询问患者有无术中知晓. 结果 三组镇静效果均满意,有良好的顺行性遗忘,三组的术中知晓率无统计学差异(P＞0.05);D组、M组无呼吸抑制,P组有轻度呼吸抑制,且较D组、M组易发生(P＜0.05);D组有2例血压升高、1例血压下降,M组血压无变化,P组有5例血压下降,P组较M组易引起血压下降(P＜0.05);D组心率下降明显,2例要用阿托品,M组、P组心率稳定,D组心率明显慢于M组与P组(P＜0.01). 结论 术中镇静,右美托咪定降低心率明显,异丙酚有轻度的呼吸、循环抑制,但都易于纠正;咪唑安定对呼吸、循环无影响.右美托咪定、咪唑安定及异丙酚都可用于区域麻醉的镇静.     

结肠镜检中丙泊酚和瑞芬太尼与咪达唑仑和芬太尼镇静的随机对照双盲研究

背景丙泊酚用于患者自控镇静（patient-controlled sedation,PCS）可解决中度镇静治疗窗窄的问题,但之前的研究存在方法学的不足。本研究中,我们使用瑞芬太尼＋丙泊酚经PCS给予,我们发现与芬太尼＋咪达唑仑相比,瑞芬太尼＋丙泊酚更方便使用。方法将50例择期结肠镜检的患者随机（使用盲法）分为咪达唑仑＋芬太尼组（MF组）或丙泊酚＋瑞芬太尼组（PR组）,药物均经PCS给予。研究中评估项目有：镇静起效时间、恢复时间、患者满意度、护士满意度、镜检医师满意度、是否需要麻醉医师干预。结果与MF组相比,PR组患者进入镇静状态与恢复明显较快（P〈0．0001）。在PR组中,恢复时间短于操作时间。两组间患者满意度、护士满意度、镜检医师满意度相同。PR组中,有2例患者因为动脉氧饱和度低于设置的安全终点而需要麻醉医师干预。结论在适当的监护条件下,丙泊酚＋瑞芬太尼用于PCS比咪达唑仑＋芬太尼更有优势。     

不同剂量咪达唑仑与异丙酚催眠效应的相互作用

目的 评价不同剂量咪达唑仑与异丙酚催眠效应的相互作用.方法 择期全麻病人120例,ASA Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,年龄18～60岁,体重40～80 kg,随机分为4组(n=30),各组分别随机分为6个亚组,M组和P组各亚组分别静脉注射咪达唑仑0.04、0.06、0.08、0.10、0.12、0.15 mg/kg、异丙酚0.8、1.0、1.2、1.5、1.8、2.2 mg/kg;MP1组和MP2组各亚组分别按咪达唑仑与异丙酚ED50等效比1:13(咪达唑仑剂量分别为0.022、0.028、0.033、0.039、0.044、0.055 mg/kg)和临床常用比例1:10(咪达唑仑剂量分别为0.03、0.04、0.045、0.05、0.055、0.06 mg/kg)行麻醉诱导.M组、P组、MP1组和MP1组分别于注药后3、1,1、1 min时行警觉,镇静(OAA/S)评分,催眠有效标准:OAA/S评分≤2分.采用加权概率单位法计算半数有效剂量(ED50)及其95%可信区间(95%CI);采用等辐射分析法判断两药催眠效应的相互作用.结果 M组、MP1.2组咪达唑仑催眠效应的ED50及其95%CI分别为0.088(0.066～0.110)、0.031(0.026～0.036)、0.045(0.040～0.049)mg/kg;P组、MP1.2组异丙酚催眠效应的ED50及其95%CI为1.142(0.933～1.350)、0.421(0.343～0.480)、0.450(0.399～0.491)mg/kg.结论 麻醉诱导时咪达唑仑与异丙酚按ED50等效剂量比1:13给药,两药催眠效应为协同作用;按临床常用剂量比1:10给药时两药催眠效应为相加作用.     

Effect of patient-controlled sedation on recovery from ambulatory monitored anesthesia care

Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) with propofol has been shown to be an effective means of conscious sedation during monitored anesthesia care. The purpose of this study was to assess both the intraoperative conduct and postoperative recovery of patients receiving propofol for conscious sedation, randomized to either PCS or anesthetist-controlled sedation (ACS). Forty-three patients scheduled for outpatient procedures requiring monitored anesthesia care were randomized to PCS or ACS. Both groups received an initial bolus of propofol 0.5 mg/kg and fentanyl 1 microgram/kg i.v., followed by an identical background infusion of propofol 50 micrograms/kg per minute. Subsequent doses of propofol 30 mg i.v. were either self-administered (PCS) or administered at the discretion of the anesthetist (ACS). Variables measuring hemodynamics, ventilation, saturation, and level of sedation were measured at baseline, after initial bolus of propofol and fentanyl, after skin incision, at last stitch, at admission to recovery, and 1 hour later. More propofol was used by the PCS group (P < 0.05). Finger-tapping was slower and responsiveness scores were lower in the PCS group at the end of the procedure (P < 0.05). More patients in the PCS group required oxygen supplementation (saturation < 90%) on admission to recovery (P < 0.05). At 1 hour after recovery admission, however, there were no differences between groups. These results indicate that when patients determine their own sedation, they are more sedated at the end of a procedure than when the anesthetist determines the level of sedation.     

Propofol and midazolam versus propofol alone for sedation following coronary artery bypass grafting: a randomized,placebo-controlled trial

The aim was to compare the efficacy and side-effects of propofol combined with a constant, low dose of midazolam versus propofol alone for sedation. In a prospective, randomized and double-blinded study, 60 male patients scheduled for elective coronary bypass grafting were enrolled. Postoperatively, patients were stratified to receive either a continuous intravenous infusion of midazolam 1 mg/h or placebo. Target Ramsay sedation score was 3 to 5 corresponding to conscious sedation. An intention-to-treat design for propofol was performed to reach target sedation. Efficacy of sedation was statistically significantly higher in the group midazolam + intention-to-treat with propofol compared with the group placebo + intention-to-treat with propofol (91% vs 79%; P=0.0005). Nine of 27 patients in the midazolam group (33.4%) and nine of 26 patients in the placebo group (34.6%) needed no supplementary propofol. Weaning time from mechanical ventilation was longer in the midazolam group whether or not they required supplemental propofol when compared with placebo group (all: 432 +/- 218 min vs 319 +/- 223 min; P=0.04; supplementary propofol: 424 +/- 234 min vs 265 +/- 175 min; P=0.03). The cumulative number of patients remaining intubated was significantly higher in the group midazolam + propofol compared with the group placebo + propofol (P=0.03). In conclusion, target sedation is reached slightly more often by the co-administration of propofol and a low dose of midazolam, but weaning time from mechanical ventilation is prolonged by the co-administration of propofol and a low dose of midazolam.     

Midazolam premedication reduces propofol requirements for sedation during regional anesthesia

PURPOSE: Propofol is often used for sedation during spinal anesthesia. We investigated the effects of midazolam premedication on the propofol requirements and incidence of complications during sedation. METHODS: In a prospective randomized, controlled, and single-blinded study, 50 patients undergoing elective gynecological surgery were randomly divided into control and midazolam groups. Patients in the midazolam group received 2 mg midazolam im 30 min before arrival at the operation room. After spinal anesthesia was instituted with intrathecal injection of hyperbaric tetracaine, we provided sedation using continuous infusion of propofol. The level of sedation was controlled at a level between "eyes closed but rousable to command" and "eyes closed but rousable to mild physical stimulation" by adjusting the infusion rate. During sedation, the propofol requirements and complications were recorded and patients were asked, two hours after the end of operation, whether they remembered intraoperative events. RESULTS: In the midazolam group, the loading dose, steady state infusion rate, and overall infusion rate of propofol were 0.74 mg x kg(-1), 2.86 mg x kg(-1) x hr(-1), and 3.32 mg x kg(-1) x hr(-1), respectively, which were about 17% lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). Moreover, midazolam premedication reduced the incidence of intraoperative memory (P < 0.05), but had no effects on other complications. CONCLUSION: Midazolam premedication reduced propofol requirements and the incidence of intraoperative memory during sedation. These effects on sedation using propofol during spinal anesthesia are considered beneficial for patients.     

A comparison of propofol and midazolam in sedation of mechanically-ventilated postoperative patients]

To compare the quality of sedation using propofol (n = 8) vs midazolam (n = 7) we evaluated their effectiveness, safety, and recovery time after their continuous infusion in patients who required mechanical ventilation after cervical spine surgery. We also calculated the cost of drugs used during the mechanical ventilation. In addition, processed electroencephalogram (pEEG) was monitored employing spectral edge frequency 90 (SEF 90) as an indicator of sedation. Both drugs produced good sedation without any complication. The patients who had received propofol were extubated significantly earlier than those who had received midazolam (P; 35 +/- 18 mins, M; 97 +/- 55 mins). However, the mean drug cost in the propofol group was five times higher than that in the midazolam group (P; yen 15,881 +/- 7,788, M; yen 3,355 +/- 1,187). There was no correlation between the value of SEF 90 and the depth of sedation during mechanical ventilation. In conclusion, propofol exhibited the shorter recovery time after cessation of the continuous infusion than midazolam, but it costed five times compared with midazolam. SEF 90 failed to indicate the depth of sedation during mechanical ventilation.     

Propofol or midazolam for short-term alterations in sedation

It is often necessary to adjust a patient’s sedation level while they are in the intensive care unit. The purpose of this study was to compare propofol with midazolam for controlling short-term alterations in sedation. Twenty-three patients undergoing an interactive procedure, physiotherapy, during mechanical ventilation of the lungs were studied. The patients were randomly assigned to receive infusions of propofol or midazolam for sedation. Sedation was assessed using the method of Ramsay, where 3 is drowsy responding only to commands; and 5 is asleep with a slow response to light glabellar tap. Prior to physiotherapy sedation was deepened from 3 to 5 by increasing the sedative infusion rate, and level 5 was maintained during physiotherapy by adjusting the infusion rate whenever necessary. After physiotherapy, the sedative dose was reduced until level 3 was again achieved. During physiotherapy, sedation level 5 was achieved for 53.9% of the time with propofol but for only 25.7% with midazolam (P < 0.01). After physiotherapy, those patients sedated with propofol re-awakened to level 3 faster (8.3 ± 2.3 min, mean ±SE) than those receiving midazolam (92.8 ± 35.0 min, P < 0.05). After physiotherapy, a further 1.8 ± 0.5 dose adjustments were required to the midazolam infusion while only 0.4 ± 0.2 adjustments were required to the propofol infusion (P < 0.05). During physiotherapy 3.0 ± 0.5 dose adjustments to the propofol dose were required compared with 3.6 ± 0.5 adjustments to the midazolam dose (NS). It is concluded that, during a standardized stimulus, physiotherapy, propofol infusion allowed a desired sedation score to be maintained for more of the time than did infusion of midazolam. Subsequently, when the infusion rates were reduced, less time was taken to re-awaken to baseline levels after physiotherapy, with fewer adjustments to the infusion rate, in those patients receiving propofol than midazolam.     

Cardiovascular Responses during Sedation after Coronary Revascularization: Incidence of Myocardial Ischemia and Hemodynamic Episodes with Propofol Versus Midazolam

Background: Propofol sedation offers advantages for titration and rapid emergence in the critically ill patient, but concern for adverse hemodynamic effects potentially limits its use in these patients. The current study compares the cardiovascular effects of sedation with propofol versus midazolam during the first 12 h after coronary revascularization.

Methods: Three hundred fifty-one patients undergoing coronary revascularization were anesthetized using a standardized sufentanil/midazolam regimen, and assigned randomly to 12 h of sedation with either propofol or midazolam while tracheally intubated. The incidence and characteristics of hemodynamic episodes, defined as heart rate less than 60 or greater than 100 beats/min or systolic blood pressure greater than 140 or less than 90 mmHg, were determined using data electronically recorded at 1-min intervals. The presence of myocardial ischemia was determined using continuous three-channel Holter electrocardiography (ECG) and of myocardial infarctions (MI) using 12-lead ECG (Q wave MI, Minnesota Code) or creatine kinase isoenzymes (CK-MB) analysis (non-Q wave MI, peak CK-MB > 70 ng/ml, or CK-MB > 70 IU/l).

Results: Ninety-three percent of patients in both treatment groups had at least one hemodynamic episode during the period of postoperative sedation. Propofol sedation resulted in a 17% lower incidence of tachycardia (58% vs. 70%, propofol vs. midazolam; P = 0.04), a 28% lower incidence of hypertension (39% vs. 54%; P = 0.02), and a greater incidence of hypotension (68% vs. 51%; P = 0.01). Despite these hemodynamic effects, the incidence of myocardial ischemia did not differ between treatment groups (12% propofol vs. 13% midazolam; P = 0.66), nor did its severity, as measured by ischemic minutes per hour monitored (8.7+/-5.8 vs. 6.2+/-4.6 min/h, propofol vs. midazolam; P = 0.19) or ischemic area under the curve (6.8+/-4.0 vs. 5.3+/-4.2; P = 0.37). The incidence of cardiac death (one per group), Q wave MI (propofol, n = 7; midazolam, n = 3; P = 0.27), or non Q wave MI (propofol, n = 16; midazolam, n = 18; P = 0.81) did not differ between treatment groups.     

Amnesia for electric dental pulp stimulation and picture recall test under different levels of propofol or midazolam sedation

AIM: To compare the amnesic effect of propofol and midazolam to electric dental pulp stimulation (invasive) and picture recall test (non-invasive) at two sedation levels with the aid of bispectral index (BIS) monitoring. METHODS: The subjects were 10 male volunteers (24-34 years) classified as ASA physical status I. Propofol was administered to achieve a sedation score of three with a target-controlled infusion technique; it was then regulated to give a sedation score of two (P group). Midazolam was administered by a titration dosage to achieve a sedation score of three (M group). It then gradually decreased to give a sedation score of two. The BIS score, sedation score, plasma/serum concentration of propofol and midazolam, blood pressure, pulse rate, respiratory rate, end-tidal CO(2) tension and arterial oxygen saturation were observed at each sedation level in both groups. Amnesic effects were evaluated using a picture recall test and electric dental pulp stimulation. RESULT: No difference was observed in the amnesic effect evaluated by picture recall test at the two sedation levels. Likewise, there was no difference at a sedation score of three when the amnesic effect was evaluated by electric dental pulp stimulation. In contrast, a significant difference was observed at a sedation score of two; midazolam produced amnesia in more subjects than did propofol. CONCLUSION: Propofol and midazolam did not show any significant difference in amnesic effects to non-invasive stimuli. For invasive stimuli, midazolam showed a stronger amnesic effect at the moderate sedation level, but not at the deeper sedation level.