Rodrigo M R, Fung S C
Faculty of Dentistry, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, PR China.
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999 Dec;37(6):472-6. doi: 10.1054/bjom.1999.0118.
To compare patient-controlled sedation with 1-mg increments of midazolam at 1-min intervals with 0.1-mg increments of midazolam without a lock-out interval.
Randomized cross over study.
32 patients aged 17-35 years having third molars removed.
Doses of midazolam obtained, degree of sedation and operating conditions were similar in the two groups. The demands far exceeded the increments actually received by patients obtaining 0.1-mg increments. Some were extremely sedated with both techniques.
In this age group, there were no significant advantages or disadvantages of one technique over the other. Patients obtained the degree of sedation they required to undergo the operation by pressing the button independently of the dose or incremental interval. So-called 'true' patient-controlled sedation is a misnomer. The cut-off interval proved to be an extremely important safety feature.
比较每隔1分钟递增1毫克咪达唑仑的患者自控镇静与无锁定间隔、每次递增0.1毫克咪达唑仑的情况。
随机交叉研究。
32名年龄在17至35岁之间接受第三磨牙拔除术的患者。
两组获得的咪达唑仑剂量、镇静程度和手术条件相似。每次递增0.1毫克的患者对药物的需求远远超过实际接受的递增剂量。两种技术都使一些患者处于深度镇静状态。
在这个年龄组中,两种技术相比没有显著的优缺点。患者通过独立按压按钮获得了手术所需的镇静程度,而与剂量或递增间隔无关。所谓的“真正”患者自控镇静是一个误称。截止间隔被证明是一个极其重要的安全特征。