无痛肠镜检查中纳布啡联合异丙酚麻醉效果和安全性评价

目的探讨纳布啡联合异丙酚在无痛肠镜检查中的麻醉效果与安全性。方法选择四川省都江堰市中医医院2018年3月至2019年3月收治的拟行无痛肠镜检查患者84例,根据随机数字表法分为对照组与观察组,各42例。对照组患者采用芬太尼联合异丙酚麻醉,观察组患者采用纳布啡联合异丙酚麻醉。比较两组患者麻醉诱导前5 min(T0)、睫毛反射消失时(T1)、检查开始即刻(T2)、镜身过脾曲时(T3)、镜身过肝曲时(T4)、术毕时(T5)、术毕后5 min(T6)及术毕后10 min(T7)7个时刻的平均动脉压(MAP)、心率(HR)、呼吸频率(RR)、血氧饱和度(SpO2)及术毕清醒后60 min内的疼痛与镇静情况;比较两组患者异丙酚用药量与相关时间,术中与术后不良反应发生情况,镜检前后6 h炎性因子水平。结果T0~T7,两组患者各时点的MAP和HR水平组内比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),两组患者各时刻点的MAP,HR,RR,SpO2水平组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术毕清醒后60 min内,两组患者各时点的视觉模拟评分及Ramsay镇静评分均呈下降趋势(P<0.05),且观察组明显低于对照组(P<0.05);两组患者异丙酚维持用量、麻醉诱导时间、检查时间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)別观察组患者异丙酚诱导用量、单位时间用量均少于对照组麻醉苏醒时间短于对照组(P<0.05);术中及术毕清醒后60 min内,观察组恶心呕吐、躁动不安、呼吸抑制的不良反应发生率低于对照组(P<0.05);镜检后6 h,两组患者的C反应蛋白、肿瘤坏死因子-α及γ-干扰素水平均较镜检前6 h升高,但观察组均低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论0.1 mg/kg纳布啡联合异丙酚用于无痛肠镜检查的麻醉效果较好,对机体的炎性应激相对较轻,安全性高。     

静脉注射氟比洛芬酯联合纳布啡用于眼眶减压术患者的术后镇痛效果

目的 评估静脉注射氟比洛芬酯联合纳布啡用于眼眶减压术患者的术后镇痛效果。方法 纳入拟行眼眶减压术的患者共计120例,根据随机数字表法分为氟比洛芬酯组（F组）、纳布啡组（N组）和氟比洛芬酯联合纳布啡组（F+N组）,每组40例。所有患者于手术结束后即刻静脉注射镇痛药物。F组患者静脉注射氟比洛芬酯100 mg;N组患者静脉注射纳布啡0.1 mg/kg;F+N组患者静脉注射上述2种药物。使用数字评价量表（NRS）和Ramsay镇静评分评估3组患者返回病房后即刻（T0）、术后2 h(T2)、术后12 h(T12)的疼痛和镇静情况。记录患者术后24 h内低血压、恶心、呕吐、寒战、呼吸抑制、瘙痒等不良反应发生情况。结果 最终共纳入116例患者,F组、N组、F+N组分别纳入38例、38例、40例患者。F+N组患者T0时点、T2时点NRS评分显著低于F组和N组患者（P<0.05）,3组患者T12时点NRS评分的比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。3组患者T0、T2、T12时点Ramsay镇静评分的比较差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。3组间低血压、恶心、呕吐、寒战、呼吸抑制及瘙痒发...     

Nalbuphine analgesia in the prehospital setting

Forty-six patients with moderate to severe pain caused by orthopedic injuries, burns, multiple trauma, or intraabdominal conditions were treated with intravenous (IV) nalbuphine hydrochloride (Nubain; DuPont Pharmaceuticals, Wilmington, DE) by paramedics before arrival at the hospital. Patients who weighed less than 60 kg received 15 mg nalbuphine, and patients weighing greater than 60 kg received 20 mg nalbuphine. Forty-one of 46 patients (89%) experienced pain relief from nalbuphine, with maximum relief occurring within 15 minutes after the administration of the drug. Two addicted patients received no pain relief. There were no untoward side effects following nalbuphine administration, and the patients' heart rates, mean arterial pressures, and respiratory rates remained constant and stable throughout the study period. Repeated assessment of the patient by paramedics in the field was not impaired by nalbuphine treatment. In summary, nalbuphine hydrochloride is a useful and safe analgesic drug for IV use by paramedics in the prehospital setting.     

Influence of perioperative nalbuphine and fentanyl on postoperative respiration and analgesia

In a double-blind study the relative postoperative respiratory and analgesic effects of perioperatively administered nalbuphine and fentanyl were compared in 60 females undergoing gynecological surgery under i.v. anesthesia. One milliliter (10 mg) nalbuphine was considered equipotent to 1 ml (100 micrograms) fentanyl. In the recovery period pain was assessed by visual analog score (VAS) and recovery by Pegboard scoring. Respiratory function was evaluated by continuous monitoring of respiratory frequency and end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2) and by frequent arterial blood gas analyses. The total volume of analgesic required for surgical analgesia was similar in the two groups. Patients in the nalbuphine group showed mild to moderate increases in pulse rate during the intubation phase and in blood pressure during surgery. Fentanyl was more effective in suppressing these cardiovascular responses. Within the first 15 min following recovery, increasing PaCO2 and ETCO2 as well as respiratory rates below 10/min were noted in 8 patients, who all belonged to the fentanyl group; in 4 of these patients i.v. naloxone had to be administered to reverse respiratory depression. Prolonged sedation was a common feature in patients receiving nalbuphine. It was concluded that fentanyl was superior to nalbuphine in attenuating the pressor responses to intubation and surgery. However, fentanyl was associated with respiratory depression in a considerable number of patients. The quality and duration of postoperative analgesia were similar in the two groups.     

A review of systemic opioids commonly used for labor pain relief

Parenteral opioids for pain relief during labor have been the subject of research for many decades. Commonly used systemic opioids provide limited pain relief during labor yet are used extensively for managing labor pain. These opioids share similar pharmacologic profiles but differ in potency, pharmacokinetics, and side effects. This article reviews the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical research related to the commonly used systemic labor pain analgesics morphine, meperidine, fentanyl, remifentanil, butorphanol, and nalbuphine.     

Comparison of nalbuphine and buprenorphine in total intravenous anaesthesia

Nalbuphine (0.3 mgkg⁻¹) and buprenorphine (2.5 μgkg⁻¹) were compared as part of a total intravenous anaesthesia regimen using a propofol infusion in 60 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a randomised double-blind study. Changes in haemodynamic variables greater than 20% from the baseline were noted. No difference was observed in blood pressure but the heart rate was significantly lower in the buprenorphine group. Intra-operative bradycardia (heart rate < 60 beatmin⁻¹) occurred more often in the buprenorphine group. Recovery was fast and comparable with both drugs and no patient reported awareness. Quality of analgesia was similar in both groups. Both drugs provide suitable analgesic supplementation to total intravenous anaesthesia.     

Analgesic and respiratory effect of nalbuphine and pethidine for adenotonsillectomy in children with obstructive sleep disorder

Opioids may depress respiration and contribute to airway obstruction after adenotonsillectomy for obstructive sleep disorder. We compared the respiratory and analgesic effects of nalbuphine, which has a ceiling effect for respiratory depression, and pethidine in 90 children (aged 2–12 years) with a history of obstructive sleep disorder undergoing adenotonsillectomy. Children were scored for their obstructive sleep disorder history and were randomly allocated to receive intravenously at induction of anaesthesia either nalbuphine 0.1 mg.kg⁻¹ (group N) or pethidine 1 mg.kg⁻¹ (group P). End-tidal carbon dioxide was measured in the recovery period using a nasopharyngeal catheter and oxygen saturation whilst breathing air; pain and sedation scores were recorded for 6 h postoperatively. Both groups were similar with respect to the demographic data and respiratory measurements: mean (SD) oxygen saturation on air in the recovery area (96.2% (1.2) vs. 96.5% (1.1) in group N and P, respectively) and mean (SD) end-tidal carbon dioxide (46.4 (5.5) mmHg vs. 47.7 (4) mmHg in group N and P, respectively). High obstructive sleep disorder score, history of apnoea, hyperactivity and loud snoring were found to be the best predictors of early postoperative oxygen desaturation in both groups.     

INCREASED NALOXONE POTENCY INDUCED BY PRETREATMENT WITH MORPHINE AND NALBUPHINE IN MICE

1. Both morphine and nalbuphine were effective in suppressing the abdominal constriction response induced by intraperitoneal injection of acetic acid in mice. On a weight to weight basis, nalbuphine was more potent than morphine in this test. However, the effect of nalbuphine was more effectively blocked by naloxone. 2. Pretreatment with morphine 2.0 mg/kg subcutaneously did not alter the antinociceptive effect of either morphine or nalbuphine measured 3 h later. However, naloxone was about 1.4-fold more effective in antagonizing the antinociceptive effect of both drugs in morphine-pretreated mice than in saline-pretreated animals. 3. Pretreatment with nalbuphine (1.0–2.0 mg/kg s.c.) did not alter the antinociceptive effect of either morphine or nalbuphine measured 3 h later, while naloxone was more effective in antagonizing the antinociceptive actions of morphine and nalbuphine. 4. The increases in naloxone potency in antagonizing morphine after nalbuphine pretreatment were not dose-dependent on the amount of nalbuphine in the pretreatment and they were only marginally significant. In addition, these increases were much lower than that induced by morphine pretreatment. 5. On the other hand, the naloxone effectiveness against nalbuphine itself was enhanced to a greater extent than that induced by morphine pretreatment. Furthermore, these increases in naloxone potency showed a dose-dependent relationship to the amount of nalbuphine used in the pretreatment. 6. Based on these results, it was concluded that nalbuphine is an analgesic drug with properties in between those of the full agonist morphine and the partial agonist pentazocine.     

The effects of tramadol on postoperative nausea, vomiting and headache after ENT surgery. A placebo-controlled comparison with equipotent doses of nalbuphine and pethidine

Background: Opioids given as adjuncts to balanced inhalational anaesthesia augment postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Tramadol, equipotent to pethidine, does not depress respiration, but can cause an increase in blood pressure and headache via its monoaminergic actions. Nalbuphine, ten times as potent as pethidine, has a ceiling respiratory depressant and ceiling analgesic effect at >0.3 mg · kg^?1. We compared the effects of equipotent doses of tramadol and nalbuphine (3.0 and 0.3 mg · kg^?1, respectively) given as analgesic with induction of anaesthesia on emesis during recovery from anaesthesia and on PONV and headache until 24 h after ENT surgery, using saline (0.2 ml · kg^?1) and an equipotent dose of pethidine (1.5 mg · kg^?1) as controls. Method: The study population (N=281) comprised 4 comparable subgroubs (N=69 to 71 each). Anaesthetic medications were standardised. Emesis during recovery from anaesthesia and nausea, vomiting, retching, headache and administrations of antiemetic and analgesics until 24 h after surgery were recorded. Results: Emesis and antiemetic requirements during recovery from anaesthesia were similar and infrequent in each group, as were the incidences of nausea alone (3 to 5%), vomiting alone (17 to 31%), and nausea with vomiting (10 to 22%) during the first 24 h after surgery. However, any complaint of PONV was least frequent in the saline and pethidine groups (32% and 37%, respectively) and most frequent in the tramadol and nalbuphine groups (49% and 52%, respectively; P<0.05 versus saline, both comparisons; P=NS versus pethidine, both comparisons). The times to onset and severity of PONV were similar in each group, but patients given nalbuphine most frequently (P<0.025) needed rescue antiemetic to treat PONV. Headache occurred with similar frequency in each group. Conclusion: It is concluded that tramadol, nalbuphine and pethidine have similar emetic effect in the doses and manner used, and that tramadol does not increase the incidence of postoperative headache when used as peroperative analgesic.     

Nalbuphine by PCA-pump for analgesia following hysterectomy: bolus application versus continuous infusion with bolus application.

The analgesic properties of the partial agonist-antagonist nalbuphine in the postoperative period are well known. When used for patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) the effectiveness of this substance is comparable to that of morphine or tramadol. However, the optimal programme for administration of nalbuphine in PCA-pumps has not been investigated. In particular, the combination of bolus administration vs bolus administration plus continuous basal administration is disputable.We hypothesized that the administration of an extra basal rate of nalbuphine in addition to the patient- triggered bolus administration and supplemental doses of diclofenac when required, would lead to a significant improvement in analgesia, without affecting the differences in vital signs and side effects.After approvement by the institutional ethics committee, 50 female patients (ASA I or II) scheduled for elective hysterectomy were included in a prospective, single-blinded study and randomized either into bolus-continuous (BC-)group (3 mg base rate/h, 1 mg bolus, 20 min lock out) or bolus (B-)group (no base rate, 1 mg bolus, 10 min lock out). During the observation period (up to 24 h postoperative) vital parameters, extent of analgesia (10-step VAS), and vigilance (5-step scale) were registered. Groups were compared by using unpaired Student t-test. A p<0.05 was considered to be significant.No differences were found in demographic data or vital parameters (MAP, PaO2, PaCO2, respiratory rate, heart rate, peripheral SaO2) during the observation period. Vital parameters showed no pathological changes in any group. With an identical rate of requirement for diclofenac (32 and 36%), analgesia in BC-group showed a decrease in VAS from 4.28+/-2.11 to 2.04+/-1.21 and from 3.64+/-2.20 to 2.08+/-0.96 in B-group. Vigilance was only marginally diminished in both groups. No serious side effects were found in either group. The consumption of nalbuphine (mg) was significantly higher in BC-group (70.28+/-13.85 vs. 47.44+/-22.99;p =0.0002) when compared to B-group. Subjective rating of effectiveness by the patients was similar in both groups.The two administration settings of nalbuphine by PCA pump have shown to be equally effective in the treatment of postoperative pain following hysterectomy. However, as the total amount of nalbuphine was significantly lower in B-group, the use of this administration schedule should be encouraged.