丙泊酚与咪唑安定用于ICU机械通气的对比研究

目的比较丙泊酚和咪唑安定对ICU机械通气患者的镇静作用与作用特点。方法选择在ICU机械通气治疗的患者60例,随机分为丙泊酚与咪唑安定两组,每组30例,分别给予相应药物,先负荷量后改为维持量。两组均根据Ramsay分级标准,通过调整用量控制患者在Ramsay评分Ⅲ～Ⅴ。分别记录起效时间、达到期望镇静效果时间、苏醒时间、不良反应发生率,顺性遗忘率及对呼吸循环的影响。结果丙泊酚组平均起效时间、达到期望镇静深度时间、停药后苏醒时间分别25s、1.5min、15.3min,均显著低于咪唑安定组（59.3s、3.0min、58mim）（P〈0.05）;丙泊酚组再入睡、恶心等各项不良反应发生率及顺性遗忘率均显著低于咪唑安定组（P〈0.05）;丙泊酚组比咪唑安定组对呼吸循环抑制作用大（P〈0.05）。结论丙泊酚和咪唑安定均能达到ICU镇静要求;丙泊酚比咪唑安定起效快、达到预期镇静的时间短、停药后苏醒时间短,不良反应发生率低;咪唑安定对心血管和呼吸循环的影响较丙泊酚小,顺性遗忘好,费用较低。

Comparative study of propofol and midazolam for ICU mechanical ventilation

Objective Comparison of propofol and midazolam for sedation and the role of the characteristics in patients undergoing ICU mechanical ventilation. Methods 60 patients undergoing ICU mechanical ventilation were eqally randomized into two groups：propofol and midazolam, each group 30 cases and with corresponding drugs. Ramsay sedation score was kept at 3~5 points by adjusting dose. Recorded and compared assessment indicators. Results The time of onset, the time to reach goal Ramsay sedation score, and the time of awakening was significantly shorter in group propofol than that in group midazolam（P0.05）, and the adverse reactions of the propofol significantly lower than the midazolam（P0.05）. Conclusion Compared to midazolam, propofol has the advantages of assessment indicators in the patients undergoing ICU mechanical ventilation, and a lower cost.