重症患者右美托咪啶和咪达唑仑镇静效果的比较:Meta分析

目的 采用Meta分析比较右美托咪啶和咪达唑仑用于重症患者镇静的效果.方法 检索PubMed、EMbase、Cochrane图书馆、万方数据库、CNKI、VIP等数据库,收集右美托咪啶和咪达唑仑用于重症患者镇静的临床随机对照研究.采用Cochrane协作网系统评价纳入文献的质量,采用Rev-Man 5.0软件对收集的患者资料进行Meta分析.结果 共纳入6项研究,包括613例患者,其中右美托咪啶组385例,咪达唑仑组228例.与咪达唑仑组比较,右美托咪啶组ICU住院时间缩短,机械通气时间、心动过缓、低血压和谵妄的发生率、病死率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 与咪达唑仑相比,右美托咪啶可缩短ICU住院时间,提示右美托咪啶有利于重症患者的转归.     

不同剂量右美托咪定和咪达唑仑用于臂丛神经阻滞的效果比较

目的 将右美托咪定(dexmedetomidine,Dex)和咪达唑仑分别用于臂丛神经阻滞患者,对其效果进行比较,并寻找Dex用于臂丛神经阻滞的合适负荷剂量. 方法 择期行上肢手术患者80例,按随机数字表法分为Dex组(D1组、D2组、D3组)和咪达唑仑组(M组),每组20例.4组分别于超声引导臂丛神经阻滞前10 min静脉输注Dex(0.3、0.5 μg/kg和0.8μg/kg)和咪达唑仑(0.05 mg/kg),输注后Dex组和M组分别给予0.5 μg·kg-l·h-1Dex和0.05 mg·kg-1·h4咪达唑仑维持镇静.记录用药前(To)、用药5 min(T1)、臂丛阻滞前即刻(T2)、臂丛阻滞后即刻(T3)、切皮时(T4)及用药30 min (T5)、40 min(T6)、60 min(T7)时的MAP、HR、Sp02、警觉/镇静(observers assessment of alertness/sedation scale,OAMS)评分,并记录发生的副作用. 结果 各组间MAP、HR差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),M组在T5时SpOz低于其他3组(P＜0.05);D1组OAA/S评分在TrT7时高于M组(P＜0.05),D2组各时点OAA/S评分与M组比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),D3组OAA/S评分在T3～T5时明显低于M组P＜0.05).Dex组低血压的发生率与负荷剂量呈正相关. 结论 Dex较咪达唑仑更适用于臂丛神经阻滞,静脉泵注Dex 0.5 μg/kg后以0.5 μg·kg-1·h-1速率维持可产生良好的镇静效果,且血流动力学较稳定、副作用较小.     

麻醉前使用右美托咪定或咪达唑仑临床效果的比较

目的探讨右美托咪定与咪达唑仑作为麻醉前用药的镇静效果及对患者记忆功能的影响。方法选择择期手术患者40例,年龄20～60岁,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,随机均分为右美托咪定组(A组)和咪达唑仑组(B组)。麻醉前20minA组静脉泵注右美托咪定0.7μg/kg,持续10min;B组静注咪达唑仑0.07mg/kg,所有患者在用药前、用药后10min均观看了内容不同的两张水果图片。记录用药前5min、用药后10min患者OAA/S评分,焦虑视觉模拟/焦虑状态问卷(AVA/SAI)评分和BIS,记录MAP、HR和SpO2,术后24h随访患者对用药前后水果图片的记忆情况。结果用药后10min两组MAP明显低于、HR明显慢于用药前5min(P<0.05或P<0.01),A组HR明显慢于B组(P<0.05)。用药后10min两组OAA/S、AVA/SAI评分和BIS明显低于用药前5min(P<0.05),A组OAA/S评分明显低于B组(P<0.05)。术后24h随访,两组患者对给药前图片西瓜记忆率均为100%,A组对给药后图片香蕉记忆率为95%,明显高于B组的0%(P<0.01)。两组患者未出现寒战和躁动。结论作为麻醉前用药,右美托咪定和咪达唑仑具有良好的镇静作用。右美托咪定对记忆功能几乎无影响,但对HR的干扰更明显。     

右美托咪定和咪达唑仑用于妇科手术患者镇静效果比较

目的比较右美托咪定和咪达唑仑在腰-硬联合麻醉中的镇静效果。方法腰-硬联合麻醉下择期行妇科子宫全切术和(或)卵巢囊肿切除术患者80例,随机分为Y组和M组,各40例。分别于麻醉平面固定后静脉输注右美托咪定0.6μg/kg和咪达唑仑0.06 mg/kg,观察给药前(T0)、切皮前即给药后10 min(T1)、手术开始5 min(T2)、15 min(T3)、30 min(T4)、45 min(T5)、术毕(T6)、术后1 h(T7)的心率(HR)、平均动脉压(MAP)、脉搏血氧饱和度(SpO2)、Narcotrend趋势指数(Narcotrend Index,NI)、Ramsay镇静评分,比较2组患者的镇静效果和不良反应。结果 NI在T2～5P<0.05;Ramsay评分在T1～4,P<0.05;HR在T1～4差异有统计学意义,MAP在T1～3差异有统计学意义;呼吸抑制、嗜睡差异有统计学意义。结论 0.6μg/kg右美托咪定应用于腰-硬联合麻醉下妇科手术,镇静作用更好,不良反应更少,无呼吸抑制,安全可行。     

右美托咪定与咪达唑仑在局部麻醉下眼部美容术中镇静效果的比较

目的 通过观察右美托咪定与咪达唑仑在局部麻醉下眼部美容手术中的镇静效果,评价其在整形美容术中应用的可行性与安全性.方法 将120例眼部美容者随机分成4组(n =30).在术前10min,A组静脉泵注右美托咪定0.5μg/kg;B组静脉泵注咪达唑仑0.02mg/kg;C组静脉泵注咪达唑仑0.05mg/kg;D组空白对照.注药后对动脉血氧饱和度(SpO2)、呼吸频率(RR)、心率(HR)、平均动脉压(MAP)、镇静水平(Ramsay镇静分级)进行监测与评定至术终.结果 自给药结束即刻起30min内,与B组相比,A组、C组镇静效果显著(P ＜0.05),其两组镇静效果的差异,无显著的统计学意义(P ＞ 0.05);手术结束即刻,A组的镇静效果优于C组(P ＜0.05);给药即刻起至术终,C 组呼吸抑制的发生率明显高于A、B、D 3组,其差异有统计学意义(P ＜0.05);各组心动过缓和低血压的发生率差异,无显著的统计学意义(P ＞0.05).结论 与高剂量咪达唑仑(0.05mg/kg)相比,术前静脉泵注小剂量右美托咪定(0.5μg/kg)可在局部麻醉下眼部美容术中达到相似的镇静效果,且镇静效果更加持久,同时对呼吸系统无明显的抑制作用,安全有效,值得临床推广应用.     

静脉输注右美托咪啶与咪达唑仑用于患儿术前用药效果的比较

目的 比较静脉输注右美托咪啶与咪达唑仑用于患儿术前用药的效果.方法 择期行普通外科或泌尿外科手术的患儿92例,年龄1～6岁,其中1～3岁及4～6岁儿童各46例,ASA分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,按年龄段分层后随机分为2组(n=46):咪达唑仑组(M组)和右美托咪啶组(D组).于麻醉诱导前约20 min由家长陪同进入麻醉准备室,分别于10 min内静脉输注咪达唑仑0.1 mg/kg或右美托咪啶1 μg/kg.采用异丙酚-罗库溴铵-瑞芬太尼行麻醉诱导,七氟醚-瑞芬太尼-罗库溴铵维持麻醉.于用药前(T1)、与家长分离(T2)和进入手术室(T3)时记录改良耶鲁术前焦虑评分(mYPAS)、镇静评分、HR、MAP、RR、SpO2.于T2,3时记录患儿进入睡眠状态(镇静评分4分)的发生情况.记录七氟醚呼气末浓度(CetSev)、瑞芬太尼输注速率、拔除喉罩时间、意识恢复时间、麻醉恢复室观察时间、苏醒期谵妄发生率、补救镇痛药使用率及不良反应的发生情况.结果 与T1时比较,两组T2,3时mYPAS评分降低、镇静评分升高,D组T3时HR及T2,3时MAP降低,M组T3时HR升高(P＜0.05);与M组比较,D组T2,3时镇静评分和睡眠发生率升高,T2时HR降低(P＜0.05),mYPAS评分、RR、MAP、SpO2、CetSev、瑞芬太尼输注速率、拔除喉罩时间、意识恢复时间、麻醉恢复室观察时间、苏醒期谵妄发生率、补救镇痛药使用率、不良反应发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 静脉输注右美托咪啶用于患儿术前用药的镇静效果优于咪达唑仑,但对血流动力学的影响强于咪达唑仑,需注意血流动力学的变化.     

右美托咪啶与咪达唑仑复合舒芬太尼用于肝癌微波治疗术患者麻醉效果的比较

目的 比较右美托咪啶与咪达唑仑复合舒芬太尼用于肝癌微波治疗术患者麻醉的效果.方法 择期行经皮肝穿刺微波治疗术的肝癌患者40例,男性,ASA分级Ⅱ级,年龄35～62岁,体重45～70 kg,采用随机数字表法,将其随机分为2组(n=20):咪达唑仑组(Ⅰ组)和右美托咪啶组(Ⅱ组).Ⅰ组静脉注射咪达唑仑负荷量40μg/kg,然后静脉输注咪达唑仑40μg·kg-1·h-1;Ⅱ组静脉注射右美托眯啶负荷量1μg/kg,然后静脉输注右美托咪啶0.5μg·kg-1·h-1.两组药物负荷量均用生理盐水稀释至20ml,注射时间均为10 min.负荷量注射完毕后5 min时,静脉注射舒芬太尼负荷量0.2μg/kg,然后采用舒芬太尼行PCIA,背景输注速率0.1μg·kg-1·h-1,PCA量0.1μg/kg,锁定时间3 min.舒芬太尼负荷量注射完毕后2 min开始手术.记录术中心动过缓、心动过速、低血压、高血压和呼吸抑制的发生情况;记录舒芬太尼的PCA总按压次数和有效按压次数.结果 两组心动过缓、心动过速、低血压和高血压的发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);与Ⅰ组比较,Ⅱ组呼吸抑制发生率降低,舒芬太尼PCA总按压次数和有效按压次数减少(P＜0.05).结论 肝癌微波治疗术患者右美托咪啶复合舒芬太尼的麻醉效果优于咪达唑仑复合舒芬太尼.

Abstract：

Objective To compare the efficacy of anesthesia with dexmedetomidinc and midazolam combined with sufentanil in patients undergoing microwave coagulation therapy for liver cancer. Methods Forty ASA Ⅱ male patients, aged 35-62 yr, weighing 45-70 kg, scheduled for percutaneous microwave coagulation therapy,were randomly divided into 2 groups ( n = 20 each): midasolam group ( group Ⅰ ) and dexmedetomidine group ( group Ⅱ ). A loading dose of midazolam 40 μg/kg ( in normal saline 20 ml) was given intravenously over 10 min,followed by midasolam infusion at 40 μg·kg-1 ·h-1 in group Ⅰ . A loading dose of dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg (in normal saline 20 ml ) was given intravenously over 10 min, followed by dexmedetomidine infusion at 0.5 loading dose of sufentanil 0.2 μg/kg was given, and then patient-controlled intravenous anesthesia with sufentsnil (background infusion 0.1 μg·kg-1 ·h-1 , bolus dose 0.1 μg/kg, lockout interval 3 min) was used. The operation was started 2 min after administration of the loading dose of sufentanil. Bradycardia, tachycardia, hypotension, hypertensinn and respiratory depression were recorded. The number of attempts and successfully delivered doses was also recorded. Results There was no significant difference in the incidence of bradycardia, tachycardia, hypotension and hypertension between the two groups ( P ＞ 0 .05). The incidence of respiratory depression was significantly lower, and the number of attempts and successfully delivered doses was smaller in group Ⅱ than in group Ⅰ ( P ＜ 0.05). Conclusion The efficacy of anesthesia with dexmedetomidine and sufentanil is better than that of anesthesia with midazolam and sufentanil in patients undergoing microwave coagulation therapy for liver cancer.     

右美托咪啶与咪达唑仑复合芬太尼用于慢性硬膜下血肿清除术患者效果的比较

目的 拟比较右美托咪啶与咪达唑仑复合芬太尼用于慢性硬膜下血肿清除术患者麻醉效果。方法 拟行慢性硬膜下血肿清除术患者50例,将患者随机分为两组(n=25):咪达唑仑组(Ⅰ组)和右美托咪啶组(Ⅱ组)。Ⅰ组咪达唑仑组负荷量0.03mg/kg,然后静脉持续输注咪达唑仑0.04mg/kg.h;Ⅱ组右美托咪啶组负荷量1μg/kg,然后静脉持续输注右美托咪啶0.3μg/kg.h。负荷量注射完毕后5分钟时,静脉注射芬太尼负荷量0.5μg/kg。病人行为疼痛评分>2分或者Ramsay镇静评分<2分,追加芬太尼0.25μg/kg,注射时间为5分钟。手术开始前,手术切口局部浸润麻醉0.5罗哌卡因3~5ml。记录手术中不良事件的发生情况。记录追加芬太尼量。结果 两组在血压、心率不良事件发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);与Ⅰ组比较,Ⅱ组呼吸抑制发生率降低,比较有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组比较芬太尼用量,Ⅱ组在总量和追加量均低于Ⅰ组,比较有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 慢性硬膜下血肿清除术患者右美托咪啶复合芬太尼的麻醉效果优于咪达唑仑复合芬太尼。     

脑电双频指数引导下右美托咪啶和咪达唑仑用于下肢手术镇静的比较

目的 比较和评估右美托咪啶(dexmedetomidine,DEX)和咪达唑仑用于骨科下肢手术中镇静的效果和安全性.方法 骨科下肢手术患者52例,均接受腰硬联合麻醉,按镇静方法 完全随机分为两组:D组27例,以DEX0.5μg·kg-1·h-1静脉恒速输注(负荷量0.5 μg/kg);M组25例,以咪达唑仑50 μg·...     

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.     

异丙酚和咪达唑仑用于颅脑创伤患者机械通气镇静对垂体前叶激素影响的比较

目的 比较异丙酚和咪达唑仑用于颅脑损伤患者机械通气镇静对垂体前叶激素的影响.方法 ICU颅脑创伤成年患者84例,拟在镇静下行机械通气治疗,采用随机数字表法,将其随机分为2组(n=42):异丙酚组(P组)和咪达唑仑组(M组).P组静脉输注异丙酚1.5～6.0mg· kg-1·h-1,加深镇静时静脉注射异丙酚50 mg;M组静脉输注咪达唑仑0.10～0.35 mg·kg-1·h-1,加深镇静时静脉注射咪达唑仑7.5 mg.维持Ramsay镇静评分2～4分,行机械通气72～120 h.记录镇静前格拉斯哥昏迷评分、入ICU后4周格拉斯哥预后评分,于镇静24、72 h时和入ICU后4周采集静脉血样,采用ELISA法测定血清皮质醇(COR)、促甲状腺激素(TSH)、泌乳素(PRL)和生长激素(GH)水平.结果 与M组比较,P组镇静24、72 h时血清COR和GH水平降低,TSH水平升高(P＜0.05或0.01),而以上指标水平均维持于正常范围.2组PRL水平及预后良好率之间差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 异丙酚与咪达唑仑用于颅脑创伤患者机械通气镇静对垂体前叶内分泌功能的影响无显著差异.     

右美托咪定与咪达唑仑镇静在机械通气患者中的应用

目的观察右美托咪定与咪达唑仑在机械通气患者中的应用。方法将2014年5月至2015年1月我院ICU病房收治的76例需要有创机械通气及持续镇静治疗的患者,按照随机数字表法均分为咪达唑仑组(M组)和右美托咪定组(D组)。M组:咪达唑仑负荷量0.06 mg/kg静注,维持量0.04~0.2mg·kg-1·h-1;D组,右美托咪定负荷量1μg/kg静注10min,维持量0.2~0.7μg·kg-1·h-1。根据Ramsay镇静评分调整药物用量,使Ramsay镇静评分维持在2~4分。记录两组患者用药后达到Ramsay镇静评分2~4分的时间、Ramsay镇静评分、ICU住院时间、机械通气时间、唤醒时间。同时采用酶联免疫吸附法(ELISA)检测两组患者用药前、用药后24、48h血清肿瘤坏死因子α(TNF-α)、白细胞介素-6(IL-6)、高敏C反应蛋白(hs-CRP)水平的变化。结果 D组患者的ICU住院时间和唤醒时间明显短于M组(P0.05)。用药后24hD组患者血清TNF-α、hs-CRP水平明显低于M组(P0.05),两组血清IL-6水平差异无统计学意义;用药后48hD组血清hsCRP水平明显低于M组(P0.05),两组患者血清TNF-α、IL-6水平差异无统计学意义。结论有创性机械通气患者使用右美托咪定镇静,缩短患者ICU住院时间,且能有效降低患者体内炎症因子水平。     

脑电双频谱指数监测重症监护室机械通气患者镇静水平的准确性

目的 评价脑电双频谱指数(BIS)监测重症监护室机械通气患者镇静水平的准确性.方法 术后未清醒带气管导管送人重症监护室的患者110例,性别不限,年龄18～64岁,体重指数17～29 kg/m2,术前格拉斯哥昏迷评分≥12分,入重症监护室时急性生理学与慢性健康状况评分系统Ⅱ评分为4～18分.静脉输注吗啡0.01～0.05 mg·kg-1·h-1,采用Prince-Henry评分评价疼痛程度,维持Prince-Henry评分1或2分.采用镇静-躁动评分(SAS评分)评价镇静水平.当SAS评分>4分时,先静脉注射咪达唑仑0.03～0.10 mg/kg,再静脉输注0.04～0.20 mg·kg-1·h-1维持;当SAS评分<2分时,则不用、减量或停用.于入重症监护室即刻、15、30、45 min、1 h及1 h后每隔1 h,记录SAS评分和BIS,直至拔除气管导管.结果 在SAS评分1～5分范围内,BIS随SAS评分的升高而升高(P<0.01),SAS评分与BIS呈正相关(r=0.68,P<0.01).结论 在无明显躁动情况下,BIS可准确地监测重症监护室机械通气患者的镇静水平.     

外科重症病人脑电双频指数指导靶控输注咪达唑仑的镇静效果

目的评价外科重症监护病房(SICU)病人脑电双频指数(BIS)指导靶控输注(TCI)咪达唑仑的镇静效果。方法SICU病人30例,随机分为3组(n=10):A组采用恒速输注咪达唑仑0．06 mg·kg-1·h-1镇静;B组采用咪达唑仑TCI镇静,初始血浆靶浓度为60 ng/ml;C组在BIS指导下咪达唑仑TCI镇静,初始血浆靶浓度为60 ng／ml。每30 min采用Ramsay镇静评分评估镇静深度,若Ramsay镇静评分小于或大于4分,则A组输注速率增加或减少0．02 mg·kg-1·h-1,B组血浆靶浓度增加或减少20 ng／ml。C组若BIS大于或小于70,则血浆靶浓度增加或减少20 ng／ml。B、C组均随机抽取30份2 ml动脉血样,测定咪达唑仑血药浓度,用偏离性和精密度评价TCI系统的性能。结果咪达唑仑TCI系统的偏离性为12．5％,精密度为22．5％。咪达唑仑实测血药浓度与Ramsay镇静评分的相关系数为0．67(P<0．05)。镇静过程中C组Ramsay镇静评分4分所占比例(54％)高于A组(28％)和B组(40％)(P<0．01)。结论咪达唑仑TCI系统的性能可靠,用于SICU病人以BIS为70调控咪达唑仑TCI,可产生良好的镇静效果。     

A comparison of dexmedetomidine sedation with and without midazolam for dental implant surgery

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) has a minimal respiratory depressive effect, which is beneficial for dentistry; however, it has the disadvantage of permitting an intraoperative arousal response such that the patient appears to be suddenly no longer sedated, and it has a variable amnestic effect. Since midazolam (MDZ) in an appropriate dose has a profound amnesic effect, we investigated whether additional MDZ compensates for the disadvantage of DEX and enables a better quality of sedation. Forty-three subjects were randomly divided into 4 groups. In group 1, MDZ (0.02 mg/kg) was administered intravenously, followed by a dose of 0.01 mg/kg every 45 minutes. After the first dose of MDZ, preloading with DEX (2 µg/kg/h for 10 minutes) was started and maintained with a dosage of 0.5 µg/kg/h. In group 2, MDZ was infused in the same manner as in group 1, followed by preloading with DEX (1 µg/kg/h for 10 minutes) and maintenance (0.3 µg/kg/h). In group 3, MDZ was infused 0.03 mg/kg, and a dose of 0.01 mg/kg was given every 30 minutes; DEX was administered at the same as in group 2. In group 4, DEX was infused using the same method as in group 1 without MDZ. The sedation levels, amnesia, and patient satisfaction were also investigated. Group 2 had a lower sedation level and a poor evaluation during the first half of the operation. Group 4 did not exhibit an amnesic effect at the beginning of the operation. An evaluation of the degree of patient satisfaction did not reveal any differences among the groups. Optimal sedation was achieved through the combined use of MDZ (0.02 mg/kg with the addition of 0.01 mg/kg every 45 minutes) and DEX (2 µg/kg/h for 10 minutes followed by 0.5 µg/kg/h).     

咪达唑仑、丙泊酚复合舒芬太尼清醒镇静在整形外科手术中的应用

目的 观察咪达唑仑、丙泊酚复合舒芬太尼清醒镇静在短小整形外科手术中的应用.方法 采用完全随机分组法选取2009年1月至2010年1月,中国医学科学院整形外科医院81例拟在清醒镇静下行整形外科手术的患者,静脉注射咪达唑仑0.05 mmg· kg-和舒芬太尼0.1 ug·kg-1后,连续输注咪达唑仑、丙泊酚、舒芬太尼复合液(咪达唑仑5 mmg+丙泊酚200 mg+舒芬太尼10μg,共计23 ml).输注初始速度为0.2 ml·kg-1 ·h-1,其后根据OAA/S评分调节输注速度,每次增加20％,维持镇静深度在OAA/S评分11分左右.记录患者的血流动力学和呼吸的变化、并发症(低氧血症、呼吸暂停、躁动、恶心呕吐)、麻醉时间和各药物的用量.术毕前5～10 min停止药物输注,术后次日随访患者对麻醉处理的满意度,以及今后类似手术是否愿意选择相同的麻醉方法.结果 静脉注射咪达唑仑、舒芬太尼后,OAA/S评分从20.0±0下降至11.9±2.6(P ＜0.05),术中维持在10.5～11.1,手术结束时恢复至16.0±2.2,但仍明显低于术前基础值(P＜0.05).镇静诱导后SBP、DBP明显下降(P＜0.05),HR无明显改变(P＞0.05),手术结束时恢复至术前水平(P＞0.05).术中有11例次出现低氧血症,5例次出现呼吸暂停,2例躁动明显,但均未出现恶心呕吐现象.麻醉时间为(101.1±42.5) min,咪达唑仑、丙泊酚和舒芬太尼用量分别为(8.4±3.7) mg、(189.1±88.7) mg和(18.2±5.6)μg.术后次日随访,96％(78/81)的患者对麻醉表示满意,并愿意再次接受相同的麻醉处理.结论 咪达唑仑、丙泊酚复合舒芬太尼清醒镇静适用于短小整形外科手术的麻醉,镇静、镇痛效果确切,患者舒适度高、恢复快.     

Recovery of postural stability following conscious sedation with midazolam in the elderly

Purpose. To investigate the differences in recovery of postural stability, after obtaining similar intravenous sedation levels with midazolam, in elderly and younger patients undergoing dental surgery. Methods. We studied 15 elderly patients (>65 years) and 15 younger patients (<55 years) after intravenous sedation. Midazolam was carefully titrated over 4–5 min until slow response to verbal commands, ptosis of the eyelid, or slight slurring of speech was obtained. Parameters were postural balance tests and an addition test, as a psychomotor function test. Results. The dose of midazolam in the elderly group (0.045 ± 0.012 mg·kg⁻¹) was 62% of that in the younger group (0.074 ± 0.026 mg·kg⁻¹). In evaluation of the percentile rank of a balance test with a visual feedback system, which contained a dynamic balance element, recovery at 60 min in the elderly group was significantly slower than that in the younger group. However, the recovery times for the balance test and the addition test, at which the significantly changed values were restored to the baseline values, were 120 min and 90 min, respectively, in both groups. Conclusion. In the recovery from sedation, elderly patients had more difficulty in acquiring postural adjustment during movement than in maintaining a standing posture. If the dose is carefully administered, however, even elderly patients might be able to return home 2 h after midazolam administration, as could the younger patients. Received: November 6, 2001 / Accepted: April 22, 2002     

Assessment of the recovery of dynamic balance after intravenous sedation with midazolam

Purpose To assess street fitness after sedation, computerized dynamic posturography (CDP) involving movement of the center of gravity may be more accurate than the conventional computerized static posturography (CSP). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the recovery of dynamic balance function after intravenous sedation by CDP in comparison with CSP, and to find a simple dynamic balance test that is well correlated with CDP.Methods The subjects were 20 male volunteers aged 20–27 years. After intravenous injection of midazolam (0.07mg·kg^–1), four balance tests were performed. The recovery time and the percentage of subjects showing recovery (difference from the baseline value 10%) were compared. As CDP, a test in which unexpected perturbation stimuli are given using an unstable platform was performed. As CSP, standing sway tests were performed. Maximum speed walking (MSW) and usual speed walking (USW) tests were performed as simple balance tests.Results The recovery time in CDP (80min) was longer than that in CSP (40–60min). The percentage of subjects showing recovery in CDP (20%) was significantly lower than that in CSP (55%–70%) 60min after the administration of midazolam. There was a significant positive correlation between the CDP test and the MSW test (r = 0.67).Conclusion CDP with perturbation stimuli detects the balance inhibitory effects of midazolam with greater sensitivity than CSP. The MSW test is well correlated with CDP with perturbation stimuli.