首页> 外文期刊>Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology >Anesthesia recovery comparison between remifentanil-propofol and remifentanil-desflurane guided by Bispectral Index? monitoring
【24h】

Anesthesia recovery comparison between remifentanil-propofol and remifentanil-desflurane guided by Bispectral Index? monitoring

机译:瑞芬太尼-丙泊酚和瑞芬太尼-地氟醚在双光谱指数监测下的麻醉恢复比较

获取原文
           

摘要

Background and objectives There is a strong demand for fast and predictable anesthesia recovery with few side effects. Choice of the hypnotic agent could impact on that. This study investigated the differences between recoveries after remifentanil-propofol and remifentanil-desflurane anesthesias guided by bispectral index (BIS ? ). Methods Forty patients were randomly assigned into 2 groups according to the anesthesia technique applied: remifentanil-propofol (REM-PRO) and remifentanil-desflurane (REM-DES). After the discontinuation of the anesthetics, the times to extubation, to obey commands and to recover the airway protection reflex were recorted. In the post-anesthetic recovery room (PACU) it was recorded the occurrence of nausea and vomiting (PONV), scores of Ramsay sedation scale and of numeric pain scale (NPS), morphine dose and length of stay in the unit. Results Data from 38 patients were analyzed: 18 from REM-PRO and 20 from REM-DES group. Anesthesia times were similar (REM-PRO = 193 min, SD 79.9 vs. 175.7 min, SD 87.9 REM-DES; p = 0.5). REM-DES had shorter times than REM-PRO group: time to follow command (8.5 min; SD 3.0 vs. 5.6 min; SD 2.5; p = 0.0) and extubation time (6.2 min; 3.1–8.5 vs. 9.5 min; 4.9–14.4; p = 0.0). Times to recover airway protective reflex were similar: 16 patients from REM-PRO (88.9%) restored the airway protective reflex 2 min after extubation vs. 17 from REM-DES (89.5%); and 2 patients from REM-PRO (11.1%) vs. 2 from REM-DES (10.5%) 6 min after extubation, p = 1. Ramsay sedation score, NPS, PONV incidents, morphine dose and PACU stay of length PACU were also similar. Conclusion Remifentanil-desflurane-based anesthesia has a faster extubation time and to follow command than remifentanil-propofol-based anesthesia when both guided by BIS ? .
机译:背景和目标急需快速且可预测的麻醉恢复且副作用很少。催眠药的选择可能会对此产生影响。这项研究调查了双光谱指数(BIS?)指导下的瑞芬太尼-丙泊酚麻醉和瑞芬太尼-地氟烷麻醉后的恢复率之间的差异。方法根据所应用的麻醉技术将40例患者随机分为2组:瑞芬太尼-丙泊酚(REM-PRO)和瑞芬太尼-地氟烷(REM-DES)。停止麻醉后,记录拔管,服从命令和恢复呼吸道保护反射的时间。在麻醉后恢复室(PACU)中记录恶心和呕吐(PONV)的发生,Ramsay镇静量表和数字疼痛量表(NPS)的得​​分,吗啡剂量和在该单元中的停留时间。结果分析了38例患者的数据:REM-PRO组18例,REM-DES组20例。麻醉时间相似(REM-PRO = 193分钟,SD 79.9 vs. 175.7分钟,SD 87.9 REM-DES; p = 0.5)。 REM-DES的时间比REM-PRO组短:遵循命令的时间(8.5分钟; SD 3.0 vs. 5.6分钟; SD 2.5; p = 0.0)和拔管时间(6.2分钟; 3.1-8.5 vs. 9.5分钟; 4.9) –14.4; p = 0.0)。恢复气道保护性反射的时间相似:拔管后2分钟,REM-PRO恢复气道保护性反射的患者为16例(占88.9%),REM-DES恢复气道保护性反射的患者为17例(占89.5%)。拔管后6分钟,REM-PRO组2例(11.1%),REM-DES组2例(10.5%),p =1。Ramsay镇静评分,NPS,PONV事件,吗啡剂量和PACU停留时间长于PACU类似。结论在BIS的指导下,基于瑞芬太尼-地氟烷的麻醉均比基于瑞芬太尼-丙泊酚的麻醉具有更快的拔管时间和遵循命令。 。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号