首页> 外文期刊>European journal of anaesthesiology >Tracheal intubating conditions using propofol and remifentanil target-controlled infusion: a comparison of remifentanil EC50 for Glidescope and Macintosh.
【24h】

Tracheal intubating conditions using propofol and remifentanil target-controlled infusion: a comparison of remifentanil EC50 for Glidescope and Macintosh.

机译:使用丙泊酚和瑞芬太尼靶控输注的气管插管条件:瑞美芬太尼EC50在Glidescope和Macintosh上的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The combination remifentanil-propofol was used for tracheal intubation without muscle relaxant in patients with anticipated difficult airway. Using a target-controlled infusion, we compared the remifentanil concentrations required for intubation with the Macintosh laryngoscope and the Glidescope, at a constant plasma concentration of propofol without muscle relaxant. METHODS: Sixty ASA I or II patients were randomly assigned to either the Macintosh or Glidescope group (30 per group). A target-controlled infusion of propofol was used to maintain a predetermined effect-site concentration of 3 microg ml. The target concentration of remifentanil for each patient in a group was determined by the response of the previous patient, using increments or decrements of 0.5 ng ml. Intubation was attempted at 4 min following induction to allow for equilibration between the blood and the effect site. The intubation response was graded as successful or failure by the Helbo-Hansen scoring system. The median effective concentration of remifentanil for tracheal intubation was determined using the probit regression model. RESULTS: The median effective concentration of remifentanil required for intubation with the Macintosh laryngoscope was 4.41 ng ml (3.13-5.27; 95% confidence interval) and that of the Glidescope was 5.45 ng ml (4.45-6.45; 95% confidence interval; P = 0.083). There was no difference in the total intubation scores. No patients showed signs of muscle rigidity. Arterial pressures or heart rate did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: There is no strong evidence that the target remifentanil concentrations required for adequate intubating conditions differed according to the technique used for intubation in the nonparalysed patient. We did not detect any major complications using this technique for either method.
机译:背景与目的:瑞芬太尼-丙泊酚联合用于气管插管而无肌肉松弛剂的预期气道困难患者。使用靶控输注,我们比较了在恒定血浆丙泊酚浓度而不使用肌肉松弛剂的情况下,使用Macintosh喉镜和Glidescope插管所需的瑞芬太尼浓度。方法:将60例ASA I或II型ASA患者随机分配至Macintosh或Glidescope组(每组30例)。使用靶控输注的异丙酚以维持3微克/毫升的预定作用部位浓度。一组中每位患者的瑞芬太尼目标浓度由先前患者的反应确定,使用0.5 ng / ml的增量或减量。诱导后4分钟尝试插管,以使血液和作用部位之间达到平衡。 Helbo-Hansen评分系统将插管反应分为成功或失败。使用概率回归模型确定瑞芬太尼用于气管插管的中位有效浓度。结果:使用Macintosh喉镜进行插管所需的瑞芬太尼的平均有效浓度为4.41 ng ml(3.13-5.27;置信区间为95%),而Glidescope的平均有效浓度为5.45 ng ml(4.45-6.45; 95%置信区间为P = 0.083)。总插管分数没有差异。没有患者显示肌肉僵硬的迹象。两组之间的动脉压或心率无差异。结论:没有强有力的证据表明适当的插管条件所需的瑞芬太尼目标浓度根据未瘫痪患者的插管技术而有所不同。对于这两种方法,我们都没有检测到任何重大并发症。

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