...
首页> 外文期刊>Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia >Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy in pediatric patients
【24h】

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy in pediatric patients

机译:右美托咪定与丙泊酚在小儿患者胃肠道内窥镜检查期间的镇静作用

获取原文

摘要

Objective To compare the sedative, hemodynamic, respiratory and adverse effects of dexmedetomidine versus propofol during gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) in pediatrics. Methods After obtaining approval of the research and ethics committee and informed consent of the parents of the patients, eighty pediatric patients ASA I/II aged 1–14 years, scheduled for gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomized into dexmedetomidine group or propofol group. Sedation was achieved with propofol 2 mg/kg bolus then infused at 100 μg/kg/min or dexmedetomidine 2.5 μg/kg over 10 min then infused at 2 μg/kg/h to achieve a Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) ?5. HR, MAP, RR and SPO2 were continuously monitored and analyzed at (T0) baseline, (T1) after induction, (T2) after insertion of endoscope, (T3) during procedure, (T4) recovery period. Times of induction, procedure, and recovery were reported together with any adverse effects. Results There were no significant differences in demographic data between the two groups. HR values were significantly lower in dexmedetomidine group at T1, T2 and T3 (83.95 ± 13.79 versus 92.95 ± 12.38, 103.35 ± 15.34 versus 112.75 ± 12.79 and 90.80 ± 13.99 versus 104.05 ± 10.73) beats/min respectively, ( p -value 0.05). No significant differences were found in MAP, RR and SPO2 values between groups at all time points. Induction and recovery times were significantly longer in dexmedetomidine group 10.51 ± 1.75 versus 3.17 ± 0.72 min and 28.55 ± 7.95 versus 13.68 ± 3.35 min ( p -value 0.001). Seven patients in dexmedetomidine group (17.5%) versus one patient in propofol group (2.5%) showed unwanted movement ( p -value 0.057), and no cases in dexmedetomidine group demonstrated oxygen desaturation versus 6 patients (15%) within propofol group ( p -value 0.026). Conclusion Dexmedetomidine sedation during GIE provides more respiratory safety and HR stability presenting itself as a suitable alternative agent especially for the relatively longer procedures.
机译:目的比较右美托咪定和丙泊酚在儿科胃肠镜检查中的镇静,血液动力学,呼吸道和不良反应。方法80例经胃肠道内窥镜检查的年龄在1-14岁的ASA I / II患儿经研究和伦理委员会批准并征得患者父母的同意后,随机分为右美托咪定组或丙泊酚组。用2 mg / kg异丙酚大剂量进行镇静,然后在10分钟内以100μg/ kg / min输注或右美托咪定2.5μg/ kg输注,然后以2μg/ kg / h输注以达到Ramsay镇静等级(RSS)≥5。在(T0)基线,诱导后(T1),内窥镜插入后(T2),手术过程中(T3),(T4)恢复期连续监测和分析HR,MAP,RR和SPO2。报告了诱导时间,程序和恢复时间以及任何不良反应。结果两组之间的人口统计学数据无显着差异。在T1,T2和T3时,右美托咪定组的HR值分别显着降低(83.95±13.79对92.95±12.38、103.35±15.34对112.75±12.79和90.80±13.99对104.05±10.73)次/分钟,(p值<0.05 )。在所有时间点,各组之间的MAP,RR和SPO2值均无显着差异。右美托咪定组的诱导和恢复时间显着延长,分别为10.51±1.75分钟和3.17±0.72分钟,而28.55±7.95分钟是13.68±3.35分钟(p值<0.001)。右美托咪定组的7例患者(17.5%)与丙泊酚组的1例患者(2.5%)表现出不想要的运动(p值0.057),右美托咪定组无氧饱和度下降的患者,丙泊酚组6例患者(15%)(p -值0.026)。结论GIE期间的右美托咪定镇静作用可提供更高的呼吸安全性和HR稳定性,使其成为一种合适的替代药物,尤其是相对较长的手术。

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