Objective To study the effect of light sedation and traditional sedation (moderate sedation with daily sedation interruption) on hemodynamic indexes and prognosis in critically ill patients after cardiac surgery. Methods A total of 134 patients who were ventilated delay after heart surgery in our hospital from January to June 2017 were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomly divided into light sedation group (RASS score-1-1, n=65) and traditional sedation group (RASS score -3--2, n=69). All patients received sufentanil for postoperative analgesia. The light sedation group received propofol and/or dexmedetomidine as sedative drugs after operation, and the conventional sedation group used midazolam for postoperative sedation. The hemodynamic indexes, the first time of weaning off the ventilator, the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay were compared between the two groups. Patients with low cardiac output syndrome after surgery were analyzed in subgroups. Results (1) There were no significant differences in heart function, operative complications and other indicators between the two groups after surgery (all P＞0.05). The low cardiac output syndrome was found in 12 patients in the light sedation group and 10 cases in the traditional sedation group. (2) Hemodynamic monitoring results displayed that the sedation/central venous oxygen saturation (SvO2/ScvO2) and cardiac index (CI) were higher after sedation than before sedation in both groups (all P＜0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups (all P＞0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that the SvO2/ScvO2index was higher in patients with low cardiac output syndrome in the traditional sedative group than that in the light sedation group (P＜0.05). There was no difference in the SvO2/ScvO2 index in patients with non-low cardiac output syndrome between two groups. (3) Compared with the traditional sedation group, the first off-line time, the total mechanical ventilation after surgery and the ICU stay time were significantly shortened, and the incidence of postoperative delirium was decreased in the light sedation group (all P＜0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that in patients with non-low cardiac output syndrome, the first off-line time, total postoperative mechanical ventilation time and total ICU stay were significantly shorter in the light sedation group than those in the traditional sedation group (all P＜0.05). There was no significant difference in patients with low cardiac output syndrome between the two groups (P＞0.05). Conclusion Patients with non-low cardiac output syndrome after cardiac surgery benefit significantly from the superficial sedative strategy, and the postoperative mechanical ventilation time and ICU residence time are reduced. The moderate sedation may contribute to the early cardiac function recovery in patients with low cardiac output syndrome.%目的 比较浅镇静与传统镇静(中度镇静加每日唤醒)对心脏术后重症患者早期血流动力学及住院期间预后的影响.方法 选取2017年1月—6月在我院心脏外科行手术治疗后入住重症监护病房(ICU)延迟脱机的成年患者共134例,按随机数字表法将患者分为浅镇静组[Richmond躁动镇静量表(RASS)评分-1～1分,65例]和传统镇静组(RASS评分-3～-2分,69例).所有患者术后均采用舒芬太尼镇痛,浅镇静组以丙泊酚和/或右美托咪定作为术后镇静药物,传统镇静组以咪达唑仑作为术后镇静药物.比较2组镇静前后的血流动力学指标、术后第1次脱机时间、机械通气总时间、ICU停留时间的变化;并对术后出现低心排综合征的患者进行亚组分析.结果(1)手术后2组患者的心功能、手术相关并发症等指标差异均无统计学意义(均P＞0.05);浅镇静组和传统镇静组分别有12例和10例出现低心排综合征.(2)血流动力学监测结果显示,2组患者镇静后的混合/中心静脉氧饱和度(SvO2/ScvO2)和心脏指数(CI)均较镇静前升高(均P＜0.05),但2组间比较差异均无统计学意义(均P＞0.05).亚组分析显示,低心排综合征患者中传统镇静组镇静后的SvO2/ScvO2指标较浅镇静组升高(P＜0.05),2组非低心排综合征患者SvO2/ScvO2指标无差别.(3)与传统镇静组相比,浅镇静组第1次脱机时间、术后总机械通气时间、ICU停留时间均明显缩短,术后谵妄发生率下降(均P＜0.05).亚组分析显示,在非低心排综合征患者中,浅镇静组的第1次脱机时间、术后总机械通气时间、ICU停留时间明显短于传统镇静组(均P＜0.05);而在低心排综合征患者中2组间上述指标无明显差别(P＞0.05).结论 心脏术后非低心排综合征患者从浅镇静策略中受益明显,术后机械通气时间和ICU停留时间减少;而适度的加深镇静可能有利于低心排综合征患者早期心脏功能的恢复.
展开▼
