首页> 外文期刊>Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia >General anaesthesia versus combined spinal epidural anaesthesia in the presence of mild to moderate pericardial effusion: A study of volunteers undergoing caesarean section
【24h】

General anaesthesia versus combined spinal epidural anaesthesia in the presence of mild to moderate pericardial effusion: A study of volunteers undergoing caesarean section

机译:轻度至中度心包积液存在下全身麻醉与硬膜外硬膜外联合麻醉:一项接受剖腹产的志愿者的研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Study objective This study evaluated the haemodynamic effects of general anaesthesia versus combined spinal epidural anaesthesia in patients undergoing caesarean section in the presence of mild to moderate pericardial effusion. Design A prospective randomized study. Setting The study setting included a hospital where a surgical team performed elective caesarean section in the presence of mild to moderate pericardial effusion. Patients and interventions Thirty healthy patients were randomly divided into two groups, general anaesthesia (GA) (group I) and combined spinal epidural (CSE) anaesthesia (group II). Measurements and main results Heart rate, central venous pressure, mean arterial blood pressure, and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure were measured 10 min before anaesthesia, after 20 and 30 min of anaesthesia, and 30 min after recovery. Blood loss was significantly lower in group II [465.33 (72.78) ml] as compared to group I [548.20 (22.73) ml]. The pain score in group II was significantly lesser [1.66 (0.72)], than in group I [2.60 (0.73)]. The HR was significantly higher in group I as compared to that in group II at 20 and 30 min after anaesthesia, and 30 min after surgery, being 81.53 (2.72), 94.80 (3.12) and 82.8 (2.85) (beats/min), respectively. However, the CVP was significantly higher in the group I at 20 and 30 min after induction, being 8.40 (0.63) and 7.80 (0.67) (cmH2O) respectively. The MAP was significantly higher in group II than in group I at 20 and 30 min after induction, being 80.86 (1.30) and 81.00 (1.00) (mmHg) respectively. The PCWA was significantly higher in group I compared to group II at 20 and 30 min after induction, being 10.13 (1.35) and 11.80 (0.94) (mmHg), respectively. Conclusion CSE anaesthesia appeared to be more advantageous, in patients undergoing caesarean section with mild to moderate pericardial effusion, with less haemodynamic changes, decreased blood loss, and better postoperative analgesia than general anaesthesia patients.
机译:研究目的本研究评估了在轻度至中度心包积液情况下进行剖腹产患者全身麻醉与联合硬膜外麻醉的血液动力学效应。设计一项前瞻性随机研究。设置研究设置包括一家医院,该医院的外科团队在有轻度至中度心包积液的情况下进行了选择性剖腹产。患者和干预措施将30例健康患者随机分为两组,分别为全身麻醉(GA)(I组)和联合硬膜外麻醉(CSE)麻醉(II组)。测量和主要结果在麻醉前10分钟,麻醉20和30分钟后以及恢复后30分钟测量心率,中心静脉压,平均动脉血压和肺毛细血管楔压。与第一组[548.20(22.73)ml]相比,第二组[465.33(72.78)ml]的失血量明显降低。第二组的疼痛评分明显低于第一组的[1.66(0.72)] [2.60(0.73)]。麻醉后20分钟和30分钟以及手术后30分钟,I组的HR明显高于II组,分别为81.53(2.72),94.80(3.12)和82.8(2.85)(次/分钟),分别。但是,诱导后20和30分钟,I组的CVP显着更高,分别为8.40(0.63)和7.80(0.67)(cmH2O)。诱导后20和30分钟,第二组的MAP显着高于第一组,分别为80.86(1.30)和81.00(1.00)(mmHg)。诱导后20分钟和30分钟,I组的PCWA明显高于II组,分别为10.13(1.35)和11.80(0.94)(mmHg)。结论CSE麻醉在进行剖腹产并有轻度至中度心包积液的患者中似乎更为有利,与全身麻醉患者相比,血液动力学变化更少,失血量减少,术后镇痛效果更好。

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