电针复合TCI靶控输注在单肺通气食管癌开胸手术麻醉中的应用与安全性＊

目的 探讨电针复合靶控输注（Target Controlled Infusion， TCI）在单肺通气食管癌开胸手术麻醉中的应用价值。方法 选取于我院拟行单肺通气食管癌开胸切除手术患者60例作为研究对象。随机将其分为试验组与对照组，对照组30例采取气管插管全麻及TCI靶控输注维持麻醉深度，试验组30例则在对照组方案基础上辅助电针麻醉，记录两组患者手术麻醉时间、药物用量、苏醒时间、并发症；以及术前（T_Ⅰ）、插管前即刻（T_Ⅱ）、插管后1 min（T_Ⅲ）、切皮即刻（T_Ⅳ）、去骨时（T_Ⅴ）、拔管即刻（T_Ⅵ）时平均动脉压（MAP）、平均心率（HR）、BIS值；术前、术后1天、术后3天简易智能精神状态检查量表（MMSE）；并于麻醉诱导前（T₀）、手术开始2 h（T₁）、术后1天（T₂）、术后3天（T₃）时抽取患者外周静脉血检测IL-1β、IL-6、IL-10、TNF-α浓度。结果 试验组手术用时、麻醉时间略低于对照组，但差异无统计学意义（P>0.05），试验组异丙酚、舒芬太尼用量以及苏醒时间均明显低于对照组（P<0.05）；T_Ⅱ时两组平均动脉压（Mean Arterial Pressure， MAP）、心率（Heartrate， HR）较术前明显降低，且试验组MAP明显低于对照组（P<0.05），但两组T_Ⅱ时HR比较无显著差异（P>0.05）；T_Ⅲ、T_Ⅵ时对照组MAP、HR明显高于T_Ⅰ时，而试验组MAP、HR与T_Ⅰ比较无显著差异（P>0.05）。术后1天、3天试验组简易智能精神状态检查量表（Mini-Mental State Examination， MMSE）评分低于对照组，有显著性差异（P<0.05）。T₁、T₂、T₃时试验组白介素-1β（IL-1β）、白介素-6（IL-6）、肿瘤坏死因子（Tumor Necrosis Factor-α， TNF-α）水平明显低于对照组（P<0.05），白介素-10（IL-10）水平明显高于对照组（P<0.05）。结论 采用电针复合TCI靶控输注麻醉方案可有效提升单肺通气食管癌开胸手术麻醉效果，能够降低患者术后认知功能障碍发生风险。     

Poly(ortho ester) nanoparticles targeted for chronic intraocular diseases: ocular safety and localization after intravitreal injection

Treatment of posterior eye diseases is more challenging than the anterior segment ailments due to a series of anatomical barriers and physiological constraints confronted by drug delivery to the back of the eye. In recent years, concerted efforts in drug delivery have been made to prolong the residence time of drugs injected in the vitreous humor of the eye. Our previous studies demonstrated that poly(ortho ester) (POE) nanoparticles were biodegradable/biocompatible and were capable of long-term sustained release. The objective of the present study was to investigate the safety and localization of POE nanoparticles in New Zealand white rabbits and C57BL/6 mice after intravitreal administration for the treatment of chronic posterior ocular diseases. Two concentration levels of POE nanoparticles solution were chosen for intravitreal injection: 1.5?mg/ml and 10?mg/ml. Our results demonstrate that POE nanoparticles were distributed throughout the vitreous cavity by optical coherence tomography (OCT) examination 14 days post-intravitreal injection. Intraocular pressure was not changed from baseline. Inflammatory or adverse effects were undetectable by slit lamp biomicroscopy. Furthermore, we demonstrate that POE nanoparticles have negligible toxicity assessed at the cellular level evidenced by a lack of glia activation or apoptosis estimation after intravitreal injection. Collectively, POE nanoparticles are a novel and nontoxic as an ocular drug delivery system for the treatment of posterior ocular diseases.     

Use of a Checklist During Observation of a Simulated Cardiac Arrest Scenario Does Not Improve Time to CPR and Defibrillation Over Observation Alone for Subsequent Scenarios

Theory: Immersive simulation is a common mode of education for medical students. Observation of clinical simulations prior to participation is believed to be beneficial, though this is often a passive process. Active observation may be more beneficial. Hypotheses: The hypothesis tested in this study was that the active use of a simple checklist during observation of an immersive simulation would result in better participant performance in a subsequent scenario compared with passive observation alone. Methods: Medical students were randomized to either passive or active (with checklist) observation of an immersive simulation involving cardiac arrest prior to participating in their own simulation. Performance measures included time to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and time to defibrillation and were compared between first and second scenarios as well as between passive and active observers. Results: Seventy-nine simulations involving 232 students were conducted. Mean time to CPR was 18 seconds (SD = 11.6) for those using the checklist and 24 seconds (SD = 15.8) for those who observed passively (M difference = 6 seconds), t(35) = 1.46, p =.153. Time to defibrillation was 94 seconds (SD = 26.4) for those using the checklist and 92 seconds (SD = 23.8) for those who observed passively (M difference = –2 seconds), t(38) =.21, p =.837. Time to CPR was 24 seconds (SD = 15.8) for passive observers and 31 seconds (SD = 21.0; M difference = 7 seconds), t(35) = 1.13, p =.265, for their first scenario counterparts. Time to CPR was 18 seconds (SD = 11.6) for active observers and 36 seconds (SD = 26.2; M difference = 18 seconds), t(24) = 2.81, p =.010, for their first scenario counterparts. Time to defibrillation was 92 seconds (SD = 23.8) for passive observers and 125 seconds (SD = 32.2; M difference = 33 seconds), t(33) = 3.63, p =.001, for their first scenario counterparts. Time to defibrillation was 94 seconds (SD = 26.4) for the active observers and 132 seconds (SD = 52.9; M difference = 38 seconds), t(28) =.46, p =.008, for their first scenario counterparts. Conclusions: Observation alone leads to improved performance in the management of a simulated cardiac arrest. The active use of a simple skills-based checklist during observation did not appear to improve performance over passive observation alone.