首页> 外文期刊>Gastrointestinal Endoscopy >A prospective, randomized, comparative trial evaluating respiratory depression during patient-controlled versus anesthesiologist-administered propofol-remifentanil sedation for elective colonoscopy.
【24h】

A prospective, randomized, comparative trial evaluating respiratory depression during patient-controlled versus anesthesiologist-administered propofol-remifentanil sedation for elective colonoscopy.

机译:一项前瞻性,随机,比较性试验,评估了在患者控制的麻醉药和麻醉药进行的丙泊酚-瑞芬太尼镇静用于选择性结肠镜检查时的呼吸抑制作用。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) with propofol-remifentanil (PR) is associated with rapid sedation and recovery, but it is associated with a greater requirement for airway rescue than PCS with midazolam-fentanyl. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that respiratory depression associated with PR is more frequent during anesthesiologist-administered sedation (AAS) than during PCS. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, open-label study. SETTING: Academic medical center. PATIENTS: Fifty patients undergoing elective colonoscopy. INTERVENTION: PCS or AAS using PR. All patients breathed 100% oxygen via an anesthesia mask with continuous spirometry and bispectral index (BIS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Respiratory rate and BIS. RESULTS: Colonoscopy was completed in all patients. No patient under PCS required airway rescue. Five patients under AAS required bag-mask ventilation to resolve Sao(2) (arterial oxygen saturation) less than 90% lasting longer than 30 seconds. The median BIS for the AAS group was 71.7 (range 61.06-82.34) and 88.1 (range 83.15-93.05) for the PCS group. Median respiratory rates were 5.97 (range 1.21-10.73) breaths per minute for AAS and 13.19 (range 9.54-16.84) for PCS. Respiratory rates less than 2 breaths per minute composed 28% of the procedure time for AAS, but only 5% for PCS. Patients under PCS had lower median predicted effect site concentrations for PR, but were able to achieve brief peak levels exceeding those with AAS. These differences were significant (P < .001). LIMITATIONS: Potential for bias with AAS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing colonoscopy with PR are significantly more likely to require intervention for hypoventilation compared with PCS. (Clinical trial registration number:NCT00868920.).
机译:背景:丙泊酚-瑞芬太尼(PR)的患者自控镇静(PCS)与快速镇静和恢复相关,但与咪达唑仑-芬太尼相比,它对气道抢救的要求更高。目的:证明与麻醉药相关的镇静作用与麻醉药相比,与PR相关的呼吸抑制更为频繁。设计:前瞻性,随机,开放标签研究。地点:学术医学中心。患者:五十名接受选择性结肠镜检查的患者。干预:使用PR的PCS或AAS。所有患者均通过具有连续肺量测定法和双光谱指数(BIS)的麻醉面罩呼吸100%的氧气。主要观察指标:呼吸频率和BIS。结果:所有患者均完成了结肠镜检查。在PCS下没有患者需要气道抢救。五名接受AAS治疗的患者需要使用面罩通气来解决Sao(2)(动脉血氧饱和度)低于90%的情况,持续时间超过30秒。 AAS组的BIS中位数为PCS组的71.7(范围为61.06-82.34)和88.1(范围为83.15-93.05)。 AAS的中位呼吸频率为每分钟5.97次(范围1.21-10.73),PCS的中位呼吸频率为每分钟13.19(范围9.54-16.84)。每分钟少于2次呼吸的呼吸频率占AAS手术时间的28%,而PCS仅占5%。 PCS下的患者PR的中位预测效应位点浓度较低,但能够达到短暂的峰值水平,超过了AAS。这些差异是显着的(P <.001)。局限性:AAS可能会产生偏差。结论:与PCS相比,接受PR结肠镜检查的患者通气不足的可能性明显更高。 (临床试验注册号:NCT00868920。)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
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