Bewlay M A, Laurence A S
Department of Anaesthetics, Royal Preston Hospital, Preston, Lancs, UK.
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2003 Sep;20(9):726-30. doi: 10.1017/s0265021503001170.
Previous work in our department, prior to the advent of digital subtraction angiography, showed that anaesthetist-administered sedation for cerebral angiography using propofol infusion-bolus fentanyl resulted in significantly more patients with early recall than a bolus fentanyl and midazolam technique. Our present study reassessed, 10 yr after our original study, the effectiveness of sedation for neuroradiological digital subtraction cerebral angiography, using three techniques currently in use in the department.
A total of 88 adult patients were sedated for neuroradiological angiograms by one of three anaesthetist-administered regimens: propofol-alfentanil infusion; boluses of fentanyl with a propofol infusion and boluses of fentanyl and midazolam. The latter two regimens had been used in our previous sedation study. Patients were assessed for time to orientation at the completion of the procedure, and followed up the next day to determine their last memory before sedation, first memory after the angiogram and any recall of the procedure itself.
All three techniques were found to give satisfactory sedation and showed minimal difference in the time to orientation at the end of the procedure (3.7, 4.3 and 5.1 min), any awareness of the procedure itself (20% of patients overall) and numbers of patients having early recall; that is, recall of still being in the radiology department before return to the ward (22/29, 16/29 and 20/30).
Our results show that since the introduction of digital subtraction angiography we may have a different end-point of sedation compared to our original study, as well as a shorter angiogram time. Satisfactory anaesthetist-administered sedation can be provided for cerebral angiography by either infusion or incremental techniques. We feel that the success and safety of a sedation technique depends considerably on the skill and experience of the administrator such that these sedation techniques are only suitable for safe use by an anaesthetist.
在数字减影血管造影术出现之前,我们科室之前的研究表明,与单次注射芬太尼和咪达唑仑技术相比,麻醉医生使用丙泊酚输注-单次注射芬太尼进行脑血管造影镇静时,出现早期回忆的患者明显更多。在我们最初的研究10年后,我们目前的研究重新评估了使用科室目前正在使用的三种技术对神经放射学数字减影脑血管造影进行镇静的效果。
共有88例成年患者通过麻醉医生实施的三种方案之一进行神经放射血管造影镇静:丙泊酚-阿芬太尼输注;单次注射芬太尼并输注丙泊酚以及单次注射芬太尼和咪达唑仑。后两种方案曾用于我们之前的镇静研究。在操作结束时评估患者的定向时间,并在第二天进行随访,以确定他们在镇静前的最后记忆、血管造影后的第一记忆以及对操作本身的任何回忆。
发现所有三种技术均能提供满意的镇静效果,并且在操作结束时的定向时间(3.7、4.3和5.1分钟)、对操作本身的任何知晓情况(总体患者的20%)以及出现早期回忆的患者数量方面差异极小;即回忆起在返回病房之前仍在放射科(22/29、16/29和20/30)。
我们的结果表明,自数字减影血管造影术引入以来,与我们最初的研究相比,我们可能有不同的镇静终点,血管造影时间也更短。通过输注或递增技术可为脑血管造影提供满意的麻醉医生实施的镇静。我们认为镇静技术的成功与安全在很大程度上取决于实施者的技能和经验,因此这些镇静技术仅适合麻醉医生安全使用。