Verghese Susan T, Hannallah Raafat S, Patel Ramesh I, Patel Kantilal M
Children's National Medical Center and George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20010, USA.
Paediatr Anaesth. 2003 Mar;13(3):228-32. doi: 10.1046/j.1460-9592.2003.01044.x.
We prospectively studied the effects of intramuscular (i.m.) ketamine alone, or combined with midazolam, on mask acceptance and recovery in young children who were uncooperative during induction of anaesthesia.
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained to study 80 children, 1-3 years, scheduled for bilateral myringotomies and tube insertion (BMT). Mask induction was attempted in all the children. Those who were uncooperative were randomly assigned to one of the four preinduction treatment groups: group I, ketamine 2 mg.kg(-1); group II, ketamine 2 mg.kg(-1) combined with midazolam 0.1 mg.kg(-1); group III, ketamine 2 mg.kg(-1) with midazolam 0.2 mg.kg(-1); or group IV, ketamine 1 mg.kg(-1) with midazolam 0.2 mg.kg(-1). Anaesthesia was continued with nitrous oxide and halothane by facemask.
Children in all treatment groups achieved satisfactory sedation in less than 3 min following the administration of the preinduction drug(s). Compared with patients who received halothane induction (comparison group), the use of ketamine alone did not significantly (P > 0.0167, a Bonferroni corrected significance level) delay recovery and discharge times (18.8 +/- 2.5 and 82.5 +/- 30.7 min vs 12.6 +/- 4.6 and 81.0 +/- 33.8 min, P = 0.030 and P = 0.941, respectively). Patients who received ketamine/midazolam combinations, however, had significantly longer recovery and discharge times vs halothane (32.3 +/- 14.0 and 128.0 +/- 36.6 min, P = 0.001, P = 0.007, respectively). These times were so clinically unacceptable, that the study had to be terminated with only 17 patients receiving study drugs.
It is concluded that ketamine/midazolam combination is not appropriate for preinduction of anaesthesia in paediatric ambulatory patients because of unacceptably prolonged recovery and delayed discharge times.
我们前瞻性地研究了单独肌内注射氯胺酮或联合咪达唑仑,对麻醉诱导期不合作幼儿面罩接受度和苏醒情况的影响。
获得机构审查委员会(IRB)批准,研究80名1至3岁计划行双侧鼓膜切开置管术(BMT)的儿童。所有儿童均尝试面罩诱导。不合作的儿童被随机分配到四个诱导前治疗组之一:I组,氯胺酮2mg·kg⁻¹;II组,氯胺酮2mg·kg⁻¹联合咪达唑仑0.1mg·kg⁻¹;III组,氯胺酮2mg·kg⁻¹加咪达唑仑0.2mg·kg⁻¹;或IV组,氯胺酮1mg·kg⁻¹加咪达唑仑0.2mg·kg⁻¹。通过面罩持续给予氧化亚氮和氟烷维持麻醉。
所有治疗组儿童在给予诱导前药物后不到3分钟内均达到满意的镇静效果。与接受氟烷诱导的患者(对照组)相比,单独使用氯胺酮并未显著(P>0.0167,经Bonferroni校正的显著性水平)延迟苏醒和出院时间(分别为18.8±2.5分钟和82.5±30.7分钟,对比12.6±4.6分钟和81.0±33.8分钟,P=0.030和P=0.941)。然而,接受氯胺酮/咪达唑仑联合用药的患者与氟烷相比,苏醒和出院时间显著延长(分别为32.3±14.0分钟和128.0±36.6分钟,P=0.001,P=0.007)。这些时间在临床上是不可接受的,以至于该研究仅17名接受研究药物的患者后就不得不终止。
得出结论,由于苏醒时间过长和出院延迟不可接受,氯胺酮/咪达唑仑联合用药不适用于小儿门诊患者的麻醉诱导。