Edomwonyi N P, Okonofua B A, Weerasinghe A S, Dangnan F
Department of Anaesthesia, University of Benin Teaching Hospital, Benin City, Edo State.
Niger Postgrad Med J. 2001 Jun;8(2):81-5.
Propofol and midazolam were compared in 40 adult patients in A.S.A. 1 or 2 presenting for short surgical procedures (< 70 minutes) with respect to induction time, pain on injection, apnoea, heart rates, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, time to eye opening on command. The first group was induced with midazolam (0.15-0.20 mg/kg) while the second was induced with propofol (2-2.5 mg/kg) intravenously. In all other respects except for the surgery that patients had the same treatment. The mean induction time was 55.25 + 26.66 and 69.75 + 24.72 for propofol and midazolam groups respectively. In the midazolam group apnoea occurred in 10% of patients compared to 80% of patients in the propofol group. Local reaction (phlebitis) was absent in the midazolam compared with 20% incident rate observed in the midazolam group. Propofol lowered blood pressure more than midazolam after three minutes of induction at a statistically significant level (P < 0.05). Recovery was significantly more rapid following propofol (P < 0.05).
在40例美国麻醉医师协会（ASA）分级为1或2级、拟行短于70分钟外科手术的成年患者中，对丙泊酚和咪达唑仑在诱导时间、注射痛、呼吸暂停、心率、血压、血氧饱和度、按指令睁眼时间等方面进行了比较。第一组静脉注射咪达唑仑（0.15 - 0.20毫克/千克）诱导，第二组静脉注射丙泊酚（2 - 2.5毫克/千克）诱导。除手术外，所有患者在其他方面接受相同治疗。丙泊酚组和咪达唑仑组的平均诱导时间分别为55.25 ± 26.66分钟和69.75 ± 24.72分钟。咪达唑仑组10%的患者发生呼吸暂停，而丙泊酚组为80%。咪达唑仑组未出现局部反应（静脉炎），而丙泊酚组的发生率为20%。诱导三分钟后，丙泊酚降低血压的幅度大于咪达唑仑，差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。丙泊酚组的恢复明显更快（P < 0.05）。
