De Bellis P, Gerbi G, Bacigalupo P, Buscaglia G, Massobrio B, Montagnani L, Servidei L
Servizio Anestesia e Rianimazione, E.O. Ospedali Galliera, Genoa.
Minerva Anestesiol. 2002 Oct;68(10):765-73.
Analgesia and sedation are indispensable in patients admitted to intensive care for the following, principal reasons: to control their state of anxiety, induce amnesia, improve their adaptation to mechanical ventilation, make invasive manoeuvres tolerable. The purpose of the present retrospective analysis is to assess the effectiveness of remifentanil in a total of 1085 patients admitted to our Resuscitation and Intensive Care Department in 1997-2001.
A sample of 60 adults was taken from these patients. The group was homogeneous in terms of age (67.3+/-10.2 kg), weight (66.7+/-10.2 kg), duration of sedation (6.8+/-1.6 days) and index of gravity (SAPS 30.1+/-4.4). The patients were suffering from chronic obstructive bronchopneumopathy, subjected to mechanical ventilation and sedated with remifentanil. The sample was then compared with another 2 groups (homogeneous with the first) of 20 patients each, treated with propofol and midazolam as the only drug. Following an initial bolus of 2 mg/kg (+/-0.04) for propofol and 0.15 mg/kg (+/-0.03) for midazolam (no bolus for remifentanil), the doses of subsequent continuous infusion (initial doses in the case of remifentanil) were: 0.05 mcg/kg/m (+/-0.01) for remifentanil; 1 mg/kg/h (+/-0.04) for propofol; 0.03 mg/kg/h (+/-0.006) for midazolam. In order to assess the level and quality of sedation, 2 subjective evaluation scales (Ramsey score and the Sedation-Agitation Score: SAS) and one system of objective evaluation (Bispectral Index; BIS) were employed. The BIS is a direct measure of the effects of anaesthetics on the brain. It is represented by a single digit (between 100, state of arousal, and zero, EEG flat), derived statistically and empirically from the EEG.
No significant differences were encountered as regards quality of sedation among the 3 groups but there was a significant difference in negative cardiovascular activity in patients treated with propofol (12% reduction in Cl, 13.8% reduction in SVR). A significant accumulation of the drug was observed in cases treated with midazolam, whereas there was no accumulation for remifentanil and propofol in relation to the duration of the infusion.
Of the various sedation modalities employed, we prefer the one which uses remifentanil as the sole drug because a good level of sedation is obtained, there is no accumulation, little interference with cardiovascular parameters and lower costs in comparison with the others.
镇痛和镇静对于入住重症监护病房的患者而言必不可少,主要原因如下:控制患者的焦虑状态、诱导失忆、改善其对机械通气的适应性、使侵入性操作可耐受。本回顾性分析的目的是评估瑞芬太尼在1997年至2001年期间入住我院复苏与重症监护科的总共1085例患者中的有效性。
从这些患者中抽取了60名成年人作为样本。该组在年龄(67.3±10.2岁)、体重(66.7±10.2千克)、镇静持续时间(6.8±1.6天)和病情严重程度指数(简化急性生理学评分30.1±4.4)方面具有同质性。这些患者患有慢性阻塞性支气管肺炎,接受机械通气,并使用瑞芬太尼进行镇静。然后将该样本与另外两组(与第一组同质性)每组20名患者进行比较,这两组分别仅使用丙泊酚和咪达唑仑进行治疗。丙泊酚初始推注剂量为2毫克/千克(±0.04),咪达唑仑为0.15毫克/千克(±0.03)(瑞芬太尼无推注),后续持续输注剂量(瑞芬太尼为初始剂量)分别为:瑞芬太尼0.05微克/千克/分钟(±0.01);丙泊酚1毫克/千克/小时(±0.04);咪达唑仑0.03毫克/千克/小时(±0.006)。为了评估镇静水平和质量,采用了2种主观评估量表(拉姆齐评分和镇静 - 躁动评分:SAS)以及1种客观评估系统(脑电双频指数;BIS)。BIS是麻醉药对大脑影响的直接测量指标。它由一个数字表示(介于100,清醒状态,和0,脑电图平线之间),是从脑电图通过统计学和经验推导得出的。
3组之间在镇静质量方面未发现显著差异,但使用丙泊酚治疗的患者在心血管负面活动方面存在显著差异(心输出量降低12%,体循环血管阻力降低13.8%)。在使用咪达唑仑治疗的病例中观察到药物有显著蓄积,而瑞芬太尼和丙泊酚相对于输注持续时间没有蓄积。
在所采用的各种镇静方式中,我们更倾向于使用瑞芬太尼作为唯一药物的方式,因为它能获得良好的镇静水平,没有蓄积,对心血管参数干扰小,且与其他方式相比成本更低。