Seifert H, Schmitt T H, Gültekin T, Caspary W F, Wehrmann T
Department of Internal Medicine II, J.W. Goethe-University Hospital, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2000 Sep;14(9):1207-14. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2036.2000.00787.x.
Adequate patient sedation is mandatory for most interventional endoscopic procedures. Recent anaesthesiologic studies indicates that propofol and midazolam act synergistically in combination and therefore may be superior to sedation with propofol alone in terms of sedation efficacy, recovery and costs (due to a presumed lower total dose of propofol needed).
A total of 239 consecutive patients undergoing therapeutic EGD or ERCP (EGD/ERCP-ratio, 1:1) randomly received either propofol alone (n=120, group A, loading dose 40-60 mg intravenously, followed by repeated doses of 20 mg) or propofol plus midazolam (n=119, group B, initial midazolam dose of 2. 5-3.5 mg intravenously, followed by repeated doses of 20 mg of propofol) for sedation. Vital signs (heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, electrocardiogram) were continuously monitored. Procedure-related parameters, the recovery time and quality (post-anaesthesia recovery score) as well as the patient's co-operation and tolerance to the procedure (visual analogue scale) were prospectively assessed.
Patients of group A and B were well matched with respect to demographic and clinical data, endoscopic findings, and the type of associated procedures. In group A, a mean dose of 0.25 +/- 0.13 mg.min/kg propofol was used compared to 0.20 +/- 0.09 mg.min/kg of propofol in group B (P < 0.01, plus additional 2.9 +/- 0.5 mg of midazolam). Clinically relevant changes in vital signs were observed at comparable frequencies with a lowering of the systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg in six out of 119 patients in group B and one out of 120 patients in group A (P=0.07). The sedation efficacy was rated similarly in both groups, whereas the mean recovery time (group A, 19 +/- 7 min vs. group B, 25 +/- 8 min, P < 0.05) as well as the recovery score (post-anaesthesia recovery score group A, 8.0 +/- 1.1 vs. post-anaesthesia recovery score group B, 7.3 +/- 1.2, P < 0.001) were significantly better with propofol alone than with propofol plus midazolam.
During therapeutic endoscopy, sedation with propofol and midazolam requires a lower total dose of propofol, but otherwise has no superior sedation efficacy and is associated with a slower post-procedure recovery than sedation with propofol alone.
对于大多数介入性内镜手术而言,充分的患者镇静是必不可少的。近期的麻醉学研究表明,丙泊酚和咪达唑仑联合使用具有协同作用,因此在镇静效果、恢复情况及成本方面(由于推测所需丙泊酚的总剂量较低)可能优于单独使用丙泊酚进行镇静。
总共239例连续接受治疗性上消化道内镜检查(EGD)或内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)(EGD/ERCP比例为1:1)的患者被随机分为两组,一组单独使用丙泊酚(n = 120,A组,静脉注射负荷剂量40 - 60mg,随后重复给予20mg剂量),另一组使用丙泊酚加咪达唑仑(n = 119,B组,静脉注射咪达唑仑初始剂量2.5 - 3.5mg,随后重复给予20mg丙泊酚)进行镇静。持续监测生命体征(心率、血压、血氧饱和度、心电图)。前瞻性评估与手术相关的参数、恢复时间和质量(麻醉后恢复评分)以及患者对手术的配合度和耐受性(视觉模拟评分)。
A组和B组患者在人口统计学和临床数据、内镜检查结果以及相关手术类型方面匹配良好。A组平均使用丙泊酚剂量为0.25±0.13mg·min/kg,而B组为0.20±0.09mg·min/kg丙泊酚(P < 0.01,另加2.9±0.5mg咪达唑仑)。两组观察到具有临床意义的生命体征变化频率相当,B组119例患者中有6例收缩压降至<90mmHg,A组120例患者中有1例(P = 0.07)。两组的镇静效果评级相似,然而单独使用丙泊酚时的平均恢复时间(A组,19±7分钟 vs. B组,25±8分钟,P < 0.05)以及恢复评分(麻醉后恢复评分A组,8.0±1.1 vs. 麻醉后恢复评分B组,7.3±1.2,P < 0.001)明显优于丙泊酚加咪达唑仑。
在治疗性内镜检查期间,丙泊酚和咪达唑仑联合镇静所需丙泊酚的总剂量较低,但在镇静效果方面并无优势,且与单独使用丙泊酚镇静相比,术后恢复较慢。