首页> 外文期刊>British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology >Relationship between sedation and pupillary function: comparison of diazepam and diphenhydramine.
【24h】

Relationship between sedation and pupillary function: comparison of diazepam and diphenhydramine.

机译:镇静作用与瞳孔功能之间的关系:地西and和苯海拉明的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

AIMS: To examine the relationship between sedation and pupillary function by comparing the effects of diazepam and diphenhydramine on arousal and pupillary activity. METHODS: Fifteen male volunteers participated in three weekly sessions in which they received (i) diazepam 10 mg, (ii) diphenhydramine 75 mg and (iii) placebo, according to a balanced, double-blind protocol. Pupil diameter was measured with infrared pupillometry under four luminance levels. Alertness was assessed by visual analogue scales (VAS) and by critical flicker fusion frequency (CFFF). Blood pressure, heart rate and skin conductance were recorded by conventional methods. Data were analysed with analysis of variance (anova) with multiple comparisons. RESULTS: There were significant effects of ambient luminance (F3,42 = 305.7, P < 0.001) and treatment condition (F2,28 = 9.0, P < 0.01) on pupil diameter; diphenhydramine caused miosis at all luminance levels (P < 0.05). The light reflex response was not affected. Both active drugs reduced the pre-post treatment changes compared with placebo [mean difference from placebo (95% confidence interval)]: in CFFF (Hz), diazepam -0.73 (-1.63, 0.17), diphenhydramine -1.46 (-2.40, -0.52); and VAS alertness (mm), diazepam -11.49 (-19.19, -3.79), diphenhydramine -19.83 (-27.46, -12.20). There were significant effects of both session (F2,26 = 145.1, P < 0.001) and treatment (F2,26 = 5.5, P < 0.01) on skin conductance; skin conductance was reduced by both drugs (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The miosis by diphenhydramine and the reduction in skin conductance by both drugs may indicate central sympatholytic effects. A lack of a sympatholytic effect of diazepam on the pupil may be due to the masking of the miosis by mydriasis resulting from the inhibition of the parasympathetic output to the iris.
机译:目的:通过比较地西epa和苯海拉明对唤醒和瞳孔活动的影响,研究镇静与瞳孔功能之间的关系。方法:根据平衡,双盲方案,十五名男性志愿者参加了三个每周的会议,分别接受(i)地西epa 10mg,(ii)苯海拉明75mg和(iii)安慰剂。在四个亮度水平下用红外光瞳法测量瞳孔直径。通过视觉模拟量表(VAS)和临界闪烁融合频率(CFFF)评估警觉性。用常规方法记录血压,心率和皮肤电导。数据通过方差分析(方差分析)进行多次比较分析。结果:环境亮度(F3,42 = 305.7,P <0.001)和治疗条件(F2,28 = 9.0,P <0.01)对瞳孔直径有显着影响;苯海拉明在所有亮度水平下均导致瞳孔缩小(P <0.05)。光反射反应不受影响。与安慰剂相比,两种活性药物均减少了治疗前的变化[与安慰剂的平均差异(95%置信区间)]:CFFF(Hz),地西epa -0.73(-1.63,0.17),苯海拉明-1.46(-2.40,- 0.52);和VAS警觉度(mm),地西epa -11.49(-19.19,-3.79),苯海拉明-19.83(-27.46,-12.20)。疗程(F2,26 = 145.1,P <0.001)和治疗(F2,26 = 5.5,P <0.01)均对皮肤电导有显着影响;两种药物均降低了皮肤电导率(P <0.05)。结论:苯海拉明引起的瞳孔缩小和两种药物的皮肤电导降低可能表明中枢性交感神经作用。地西epa对瞳孔缺乏交感神经作用可能是由于瞳孔散瞳掩盖了瞳孔缩小,而瞳孔散大是由于抑制了向虹膜的副交感神经输出而引起的。

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