...
首页> 外文期刊>European review for medical and pharmacological sciences. >Comparison of propofol-remifentanil and propofol-ketamine combination for dilatation and currettage: a randomized double blind prospective trial
【24h】

Comparison of propofol-remifentanil and propofol-ketamine combination for dilatation and currettage: a randomized double blind prospective trial

机译:丙泊酚-瑞芬太尼和丙泊酚-氯胺酮联合用于扩张和刮宫的比较:一项随机双盲前瞻性试验

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the propofol-remifentanil combination and propofol-ketamine combination for Dilatation and Curettage (DC) procedure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, double blind, and randomized study comprised 81 female patients undergoing diagnostic DC. Patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups; propofol-remifentanil (Group PR, n= 44) or propofol-ketamine (Group PK, n= 37). The level of sedation was assessed with the Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS). The patients’ RSS scores were maintained at 4-5 with an additional 0.5 mg/kg bolus dose of propofol. Heart rate (HR), mean blood pressure (MBP), peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), and RSS were recorded. The Modify Aldrete Score (MAS) was used for postoperative recovery evaluation, and the time to reach MAS score of 10 was recorded. Total dose of propofol, procedure time, side effects, and satisfaction scores of patient and surgeon were also recorded. RESULTS: The mean HR and MBP values of Group PR were lower than those of Group PK, at all recording times. Sedation levels were significantly higher in Group PK. The total dose of propofol consumed was significantly higher in Group PR. The recovery time of Group PK was significantly longer than that of Group PF (p<0.05). Nausea-vomiting and bradycardia were more frequent in the Group PR. There was no difference in patient and surgeon satisfaction between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ketamine-propofol combination provides better hemodynamic stability and better quality of sedation than propofol-remifentanil combination. Ketamine still seems as an advantageous and safe drug for such procedure.
机译:目的:本研究的目的是比较丙泊酚-瑞芬太尼联合用药和丙泊酚-氯胺酮联合用药在扩张和刮除术中的作用。患者与方法:这项前瞻性,双盲,随机研究包括81位接受诊断性DC的女性患者。患者被随机分配到两组之一。丙泊酚-瑞芬太尼(PR组,n = 44)或丙泊酚-氯胺酮(PK组,n = 37)。镇静水平通过Ramsay镇静评分(RSS)进行评估。患者的RSS评分维持在4-5,另外还有0.5 mg / kg推注剂量的异丙酚。记录心率(HR),平均血压(MBP),外周血氧饱和度(SpO2)和RSS。改良Aldrete评分(MAS)用于术后恢复评估,并记录达到MAS评分10的时间。还记录了异丙酚的总剂量,手术时间,副作用以及患者和医生的满意度评分。结果:在所有记录时间,PR组的平均HR和MBP值均低于PK组。 PK组的镇静水平明显更高。 PR组的丙泊酚消耗的总剂量明显更高。 PK组的恢复时间明显长于PF组(p <0.05)。在PR组中,恶心呕吐和心动过缓更为常见。两组患者和外科医生的满意度没有差异。结论:与丙泊酚-瑞芬太尼组合相比,氯胺酮-丙泊酚组合具有更好的血液动力学稳定性和镇静质量。氯胺酮似乎仍然是这种手术的有利和安全的药物。

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