小儿氯胺酮麻醉分别复合异丙酚与咪达唑仑的比较

目的比较小儿氯胺酮基础麻醉时复合异丙酚与咪达唑仑的麻醉效果。方法随机选择40例小儿短小手术,肌注氯胺酮后分别复合异丙酚(Ⅰ组)和咪达唑仑(Ⅱ组)进行麻醉,记录麻醉时间、生命体征变化、苏醒时间等。结果两组病人麻醉时间:Ⅰ组为(42.8±10.2)min,Ⅱ组(40.7±11.5)min,时间基本相似(P>0.05)。氯胺酮用量分别为Ⅰ组(8.12±1.13)mg/(kg.h),Ⅱ组(8.25±1.00)mg/(kg.h),两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组患儿各项生命体征参数(HR、RR、BP、SpO2)相比差异无统计学意义。心率和血压在肌注氯胺酮后20 min均增加了(15±5)%,但在静注异丙酚和咪达唑仑后均下降5%~10%。苏醒时间基本相同。结论氯胺酮基础麻醉中分别复合异丙酚与咪达唑仑均可安全运用于小儿短小手术。     

腹腔镜手术病人咪达唑仑-芬太尼-异丙酚麻醉诱导的优化配伍方案

目的 采用权重配方法探讨腹腔镜手术病人咪达唑仑、芬太尼、异丙酚复合麻醉诱导的优化配伍方案。方法选择ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级择期腹腔镜手术病人60例，男34例，女26例，年龄31～55岁。诱导药物的低效量和足量分别确定为咪达唑仑0．02、0．06mg／kg，芬太尼2、6μg／kg，异丙酚0．5、1．5mg／kg。根据权重配方法，将病人随机分配至3种药物不同剂量组合的6个配伍组（n=10）。连续监测脑电双频谱指数（BIS）、心率（HR）、平均动脉压（MAP）、脉搏血氧饱和度（SpO2）。各组依次静脉注射相应剂量咪达唑仑、芬太尼、异丙酚和罗库溴铵0．6mg／kg行麻醉诱导和气管插管。记录诱导前即刻、异丙酚注入后1、2min、插管即刻、插管后1、3、5、7min的BIS、MAP及HR。按权重配方法的剂量优化原则评判复合药效，分析各组份药的重要程度及相互作用的性质。结果以BIS为评价指标，当咪达唑仑0．06mg／kg、芬太尼5μg／ks、异丙酚1．0mg／kg配伍时，异丙酚为主药，异丙酚与咪达唑仑和芬太。尼具有相加性作用；以MAP为评价指标，当咪达唑仑0．06mg／kg、芬太尼5μg，kg、异丙酚1．5mg／kg配伍时，异丙酚为主药，异丙酚与咪达唑仑具有协同性作用，异丙酚与芬太尼具有相加性作用；以HR为评价指标，当咪达唑仑0．06mg／kg、芬太尼5μg／kg、异丙酚1．0mg／kg配伍时，芬太尼为主药，异丙酚与咪达唑仑和芬太尼具有协同性作用。结论腹腔镜手术病人咪达唑仑、芬太尼、异丙酚复合麻醉诱导在维持镇静方面为相加作用，在维持血液动力学稳定方面为协同作用；优化配伍方案为咪达唑仑0．06mg／kg、芬太尼5μg／kg、异丙酚1．5mg／kg。     

咪达唑仑临床麻醉应用进展

咪达唑仑用于成人麻醉前给药时于入手术室前１５ｍｉｎ根据年龄计量肌注，男性的性减量。与巴比妥本盐及异丙酚联合给药可用于麻醉诱导。持续静注并伍用芬太尼施行全凭静脉麻醉，中稳定循环动力。腰麻及硬膜外麻醉时，表中发挥缓解紧张及镇静作用。用于心内手术时，对心功能影响小，可防止术中清醒对高龄及肝、肾机能季低者应该注意作用增强的可能性。     

异丙酚或咪达唑仑复合麻醉下心脏手术患者心肌细胞凋亡及术后早期恢复的比较

目的比较异丙酚或咪达唑仑复合麻醉下心脏瓣膜置换术患者心肌细胞凋亡及术后早期恢复情况。方法择期体外循环下心脏瓣膜置换术患者40例，随机分为2组（n=20）：异丙酚复合麻醉组（P组）和咪达唑仑复合麻醉组（M组）。采用异丙酚或咪达唑仑复合芬太尼、维库溴铵全凭静脉麻醉，分别于上腔静脉插管前（CPB前）、撤机后取右心耳组织，检测caspase-9、caspase-3表达，计算细胞凋亡指数（AI），并观察术中MAP、HR及术后早期恢复情况。结果与M组比较，P组多巴酚丁胺的输注速率减慢，清醒时间、拔管时间以及ICU停留时间缩短（P〈0．05）。P组心脏自动复跳率高于M组（P〈0．05）。与CPB前相比，撤机后M组心肌AI升高，caspase-9、caspase-3表达上调（P〈0．05），P组各指标差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）；撤机后M组心肌AI及caspase-9、caspase-3表达高于P组（P〈0．05）。结论与咪达唑仑复合麻醉比较，异丙酚复合麻醉可抑制心脏瓣膜置换术中患者心肌细胞凋亡，术后早期恢复快，更适用于心脏手术麻醉。     

硬膜外麻醉下异丙酚联合咪达唑仑镇静对内隐记忆的影响

目的探讨术中异丙酚联合咪达唑仑镇静对内隐记忆的影响,分析内隐记忆消失的中潜伏期听觉诱发电位(MLAEP)参数界值,为临床镇静深度监测提供一项新的客观指标。方法 硬膜外麻醉下择期手术病人45例(ASA Ⅰ～Ⅱ级),随机分为异丙酚组(P)、联合用药一组(PM1)、联合用药二组(PM2)3组,每组15例。P组:异丙酚2 mg·kg-1·h-1;PM1组:异丙酚1.5 mg·kg-1·h 咪达唑仑0.03 mg·kg-1·h-1;PM2组:异丙酚1.5 mg·kg-1·h-1 咪达唑仑0.06 mg·kg-1·h-1。所有病人经异丙酚或异丙酚联合咪达唑仑镇静15 min后,让病人听录音带即内隐记忆刺激。记录入室时(T1)、行硬膜外麻醉后(T2)、静脉给药后15min(T1)、切皮后2min(T4)、内隐记忆刺激完成即刻(T5)等时点的心率(HR)、平均动脉压(MAP)、MLAEP。术后6 h进行记忆调查,测定病人的模糊辨听率。结果 异丙酚镇静Pa、Nb波潜伏期延长、波幅降低(P<0.05),但联合用药组潜伏期延长更明显、波幅降得更低(P<0.05)。所有病人外显记忆均消失;P组均存在内隐记忆,两联合用药组内隐记忆均消失。结论异丙酚和咪达唑仑联合镇静可以消除外显记忆和内隐记忆。MLAEP参数Pa、Nb波潜伏期、波幅可以作为评价术中镇静深度的客观监测指标。     

咪达唑仑和异丙酚复合麻醉应用于心脏电复律的研究

异丙酚是一种短效新型静脉麻醉药，咪达唑仑是一种与异丙酚作用相似的静脉麻醉药。本文通过比较分析异丙酚和咪达唑仑加异丙酚复合应用于两组心脏电复律病人结果，为两者复合用于临床心脏电复律提供参考。资料和方法１．一般资料：房扑房颤患者共２０例，男１３例，女７例；年龄ASA分级Ⅱ～Ⅲ。随机分为两组：（Ⅰ组）异丙酚组，（Ⅱ组）咪达唑仑和异丙酚复合组。患者情况见表１。２．实验方法：心脏电复律均在急诊室及心内科病房进行，患者无表１患者资料（n＝２０，x±s）组别人数（n）年龄（y）性别（男／女）体重（kg）房颤／房扑I组I…     

咪达唑仑联合芬太尼静脉辅助硬膜外麻醉应用于妇科手术的效果观察

目的观察咪达唑仑联合芬太尼静脉辅助硬膜外麻醉在妇科手术中的效果。方法将70例在硬膜外麻醉下实施妇科手术的患者随机分为2组,各35例。观察组辅助用药采用咪达唑仑联合芬太尼,对照组采用氟哌利多联合芬太尼。比较分析2组患者术前、术中的血氧饱和度(SPO2)、血压(Bp)、心率(HR)。采用Ramsay法评价2组的镇静麻醉效果。结果观察组顺行性遗忘和麻醉效果明显优于对照组,P<0.05,差异有统计学意义。但2组患者的Bp、SPO2、HR比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论妇科手术应用咪达唑仑联合芬太尼作为硬膜外阻滞的辅助用药,小剂量分次给药,麻醉效果好,不良反应轻,且对循环功能无明显影响,呼吸并发症少,值得临床进一步推广应用。     

Patient-controlled drug administration during local anesthesia: A comparison of midazolam, propofol, and alfentanil

Study Objective: To evaluate the perioperative effects of alfentanil, midazolam, and propofol when administered using a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device during local anesthesia.

Design: Randomized, single-blind comparative study.

Setting: Outpatient surgery center at a university teaching hospital.

Patients: Ninety outpatients undergoing minor elective surgical procedures with local anesthetic infiltration were assigned to one of three treatment groups.

Interventions: After premedication with midazolam 1 mg intravenously (IV) and fentanyl 50 μg IV, patients were allowed to self-administer 2 ml bolus doses of either alfentanil 250 μg/ml, midazolam 0.4 mg/ml, or propofol 10 mg/ml at minimal intervals of 3 minutes to supplement a basal infusion rate of 5 ml/hr.

Measurements and Main Results: The total intraoperative dosages of alfentanil, midazolam, and propofol were 2.7 ± 1.1 mg, 4.7 ± 2.7 mg, and 114 ± 42 mg, respectively, for procedures lasting 48 ± 28 minutes to 51 ± 19 minutes (means ± SD). Propofol produced more pain on injection (39% vs. 4% and 6% in the alfentanil and midazolam groups, respectively). Episodes of arterial oxygen saturation less than 90% were more frequent with alfentanil (28%) than with midazolam (3%) or propofol (13%). Using the visual analog scale, patients reported comparable levels of discomfort, anxiety, and sedation during the operation in all three treatment groups. Postoperative picture recall was significantly decreased with midazolam versus alfentanil and propofol. Finally, postoperative nausea was reported more frequently in the alfentanil group (29%) than in the midazolam (10%) or propofol (18%) groups, contributing to a significant prolongation of the discharge time in the alfentanil-treated patients.

Conclusions: When self-administered as adjuvants during local anesthesia using a PCA delivery system, alfentanil, midazolam, and propofol were equally acceptable to patients. However, propofol and midazolam were associated with fewer perioperative complications than was alfentanil.     

A comparison of midazolam co-induction with propofol predosing for induction of anaesthesia

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 90 ASA 1 and 2 patients scheduled for elective surgery we compared the effect of pre-administering midazolam 2 mg or propofol 30 mg on the dose of propofol subsequently required to induce anaesthesia. Using loss of response to verbal command and tolerance to placement of a facemask as end-points, the dose of propofol required to induce anaesthesia was significantly smaller in the patients given propofol (1.87 mg.kg-1) or midazolam (1.71 mg.kg-1) when compared to the control group (2.38 mg.kg-1). Although the decrease in blood pressure following induction was no difference between the two study groups and the decrease was felt not to be of clinical significance in this group of patients. As propofol is presented ' ... for use in a single patient only' and the technique of predosing with propofol allowed induction of all patients with less than 200 mg (a single ampoule), we question on a cost basis whether midazolam co-induction is necessary to reduce propofol induction doses.     

Emergence agitation after cataract surgery in children: a comparison of midazolam,propofol and ketamine

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine whether the concurrent use of either of a subhypnotic dose of midazolam, propofol or ketamine with fentanyl just before discontinuing the sevoflurane anesthesia would effectively sedate the children as they recovered and significantly decrease the incidence and severity of emergence agitation and would not delay patient awakening and discharge. Background: Postoperative emergence agitation may occur in children after general anesthesia with volatile anesthetics. Children who undergo cataract surgery after sevoflurane induction and sevoflurane–remifentanil maintenance may experience this type of agitation. Methods/Materials: In 120 un‐premedicated children aged 1–7 years, mask induction with sevoflurane was performed and they were then randomly assigned to one of the three antiagitation postoperative groups (n = 40). We studied the postoperative antiagitation effects of subhypnotic doses of midazolam combined with fentanyl, propofol with fentanyl or ketamine with fentanyl administered just before discontinuing the sevoflurane anesthesia. A score for the level of agitation can be assigned based on the recovery mental state (RMS) scale and the recently published pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium scale (PAED). Postoperative factors assessed included emergence behaviors, the time to eye opening, the time to discharge from the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) to the ward. Results: There were significantly more agitated children in the ketamine‐group when compared to the midazolam‐group or to the propofol‐group at all time P < 0.05), especially at 10 and 15 min. The PAED scale showed a significant advantage for midazolam–fentanyl [5 (2–15)] and propofol–fentanyl [6 (3–15)] versus ketamine–fentanyl [10 (3–20)] (P < 0.05). The time to discharge from the PACU to the ward was not significantly different among the groups. Conclusions: Intravenous administration of a subhypnotic dose of midazolam or propofol in addition to a low dose of fentanyl just before discontinuing the sevoflurane anesthesia was both effective on decreasing the incidence and severity of emergence agitation in children undergoing cataract extraction without significant delaying recovery time and discharge. The effect of midazolam was clearer than that seen with propofol.     

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.     

Effects of postoperative sedation with propofol and midazolam on pancreatic function assessed by pancreatitis-associated protein

This prospective randomised controlled study evaluated the effects of postoperative sedation with propofol and midazolam on pancreatic function. We studied 42 intensive care unit patients undergoing elective major surgery who were expected to be sedated postoperatively. Patients were randomly assigned to a propofol group (n = 21) or a midazolam group (n = 21). To assess pancreatic function, the following parameters were measured: pancreatitis-associated protein, amylase, lipase, cholesterol and triglyceride prior to start of sedation on the intensive care unit, 4 h after the sedation was started and at the first postoperative day. Patients in the propofol group received on average (SD) 1292 (430) mg propofol and were sedated for 9.03 (4.26) h. The midazolam group received 92 (36) mg midazolam and were sedated for 8.81 (4.68) h. Plasma cholesterol concentrations did not differ significantly between groups. Triglyceride plasma levels 4 h after the start of infusion were significantly higher in the propofol group (140 (54) mg.dl(-1)) than the midazolam-treated patients (81 (29) mg.dl(-1)), but were within normal limits. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding amylase, lipase and pancreatitis-associated protein plasma concentrations at any time. No markers of pancreatic dysfunction were outside the normal range. We conclude that postoperative sedation with propofol induced a significant increase of serum triglyceride levels but that pancreatic function is unchanged with standard doses of propofol.     

Intravenous infusion of midazolam, propofol and vecuronium in a patient with severe tetanus

An adult patient with severe tetanus was successfully treated with alternating long-term infusions of propofol (20-80 mg/h, 8 + 3 days) and midazolam (5-15 mg/h, 29 days) for sedation, and with vecuronium infusion (6-8 mg/h, 35 days) for muscle relaxation. In addition, continuous infusion of labetalol (10-20 mg/h, 39 days) was given to control arterial blood pressure. Blood samples were taken daily for assays of propofol, midazolam and vecuronium plasma concentrations. No accumulation of propofol and vecuronium could be detected. There was an increase in liver enzyme activity at the end of the first 8-day propofol infusion. During the 4-week midazolam infusion, there were two marked plasma concentration peaks at times when the infusion rate was fairly stable. These changes coincided with pulmonary infection (C-reactive protein elevated) and ciprofloxacin treatment. The patient awoke rapidly after the last propofol infusion. He was unable to recall anything about his stay in the intensive care unit.