...
首页> 外文期刊>Canadian journal of anesthesia: Journal canadien d'anesthesie >Anesthesiologist-controlled versus patient-controlled propofol sedation for shockwave lithotripsy.
【24h】

Anesthesiologist-controlled versus patient-controlled propofol sedation for shockwave lithotripsy.

机译:麻醉师控制的异丙酚镇静与患者控制的丙泊酚镇静用于冲击波碎石术。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

PURPOSE: To compare anesthesiologist-controlled sedation (ACS) with patient-controlled sedation (PCS), with respect to propofol requirements, sedation, and recovery, in patients undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for urinary calculi. METHODS: Sixty-four patients were randomized, in this double-blind study, to receive propofol sedation according to one of two regimens: infusion of 200 microg.kg(-1) .min(-1) for ten minutes reduced thereafter to 50-150 microg.kg(-1) .min(-1) titrated by an anesthesiologist, according to patient response (group ACS), or propofol administered by patient-controlled analgesia (bolus dose 300 microg.kg(-1), lockout interval three minutes, no basal infusion), (group PCS). All patients received midazolam 10 microg.kg(-1) iv and fentanyl 1 microg.kg(-1) iv preoperatively, followed by fentanyl infused at a rate of 0.5 microg.kg(-1) .hr(-1) throughout the procedure. Sedation and analgesia were assessed using the A-line ARX index and visual analogue scale, respectively. Psychomotor recovery and readiness for recovery room discharge were assessed using the Trieger dot test and postanesthesia discharge score, respectively. Patient satisfaction was assessed on a seven-point scale (1-7). RESULTS: In comparison to group PCS, patients in group ACS received more propofol (398 +/- 162 mg vs 199 +/- 68 mg, P < 0.001), were more sedated (A-line ARX index: 35 +/- 16 vs 73 +/- 16, P < 0.001), experienced less pain (visual analogue scale: 0 +/- 0 vs 3 +/- 1, P < 0.001), and were more satisfied (median [Q1, Q3]: 7 [7, 7] vs 6 [6, 7], P < 0.001). In contrast, patients in group PCS had faster psychomotor recovery (Trieger dot test median [Q1, Q3]: 8 [4, 16] vs 16 [12, 26] dots missed, P = 0.002) and achieved postanesthesia discharge score >/=9 earlier (median [Q1, Q3]: 40 [35, 60] vs 88 [75, 100] min, P < 0.001) compared with group ACS. CONCLUSION: In comparison to PCS for patients undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, propofol/fentanyl ACS is associated with increased propofol administration, deeper sedation levels, and greater patient comfort. However, ACS is associated with slower recovery and a longer time to meet discharge criteria, when compared to PCS.
机译:目的:在接受体外冲击波碎石术治疗尿路结石的患者中,比较异丙酚的需要量,镇静作用和恢复情况,以比较麻醉师控制的镇静(ACS)和患者控制的镇静(PCS)。方法:在该双盲研究中,将64名患者随机分为以下两种方案之一接受丙泊酚镇静:输注200 microg.kg(-1).min(-1)10分钟,然后减至50 -150 microg.kg(-1).min(-1)由麻醉师根据患者反应(ACS组)滴定,或异丙酚通过患者自控镇痛(推注剂量300 microg.kg(-1),锁定)间隔三分钟,不进行基础输注)(PCS组)。所有患者术前均接受咪达唑仑10 microg.kg(-1)静脉注射和芬太尼1 microg.kg(-1)静脉注射,然后在整个手术过程中以0.5 microg.kg(-1).hr(-1)的速率注入芬太尼。程序。分别使用A线ARX指数和视觉模拟量表评估镇静和镇痛效果。分别使用Trieger点试验和麻醉后出院评分评估精神运动的恢复和恢复室出院的准备情况。患者满意度以七点量表(1-7)进行评估。结果:与PCS组相比,ACS组的患者接受更多的丙泊酚(398 +/- 162 mg vs 199 +/- 68 mg,P <0.001),镇静效果更好(A线ARX指数:35 +/- 16 vs 73 +/- 16,P <0.001),疼痛减轻(视觉模拟量表:0 +/- 0 vs 3 +/- 1,P <0.001),并且更满意(中位数[Q1,Q3]:7 [7,7]与6 [6,7],P <0.001)。相比之下,PCS组患者的精神运动恢复更快(Trieger点测试中位数[Q1,Q3]:错失8点[4,16] vs 16点[12,26]点,P = 0.002),并且达到了麻醉后出院评分> / =与ACS组相比,早9位(中位[Q1,Q3]:40 [35,60] vs 88 [75,100] min,P <0.001)。结论:与PCS相比,接受体外冲击波碎石术的患者,丙泊酚/芬太尼ACS与丙泊酚给药增加,镇静水平更高和患者舒适度更高有关。但是,与PCS相比,ACS的恢复速度较慢,满足放电标准的时间更长。

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