Lacombe Gabriel F, Leake James L, Clokie Cameron M L, Haas Daniel A
Montréal, Canada.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006 Feb;64(2):215-22. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2005.10.026.
The aim of this study was to compare recovery for oral surgery patients given a deep sedation regimen of midazolam, propofol, and remifentanil with a standard control of fentanyl in place of remifentanil.
This investigation was designed as a randomized, prospective, single-blinded controlled study. Group 1, the control, received midazolam 0.03 mg/kg, fentanyl 1 microg/kg, and propofol initially at 140 microg/kg/min. Group 2 received midazolam 0.03 mg/kg, remifentanil: propofol (1:500) given at an initial propofol infusion rate of 40 microg/kg/min. Outcome measures included time to response to verbal command, Aldrete score = 9, Postanesthesia Discharge Scoring System = 7, and assessment by the Digit Symbol Substitution Test.
Forty-seven subjects were entered in the study. Baseline findings were homogenous between the 2 groups. Subjects in group 2 recovered earlier (P < .005) and required less propofol for both the induction (0.8 +/- 0.4 versus 1.2 +/- 0.6 mg/kg; mean +/- SD, P < .01) and maintenance of deep sedation (46 +/- 9 versus 131 +/- 17 microg/kg/min; P < .005). There were minor differences in vital signs.
This study demonstrated that this remifentanil regimen provided significantly more rapid recovery and used significantly less propofol compared with the fentanyl regimen.
本研究旨在比较接受咪达唑仑、丙泊酚和瑞芬太尼深度镇静方案的口腔外科患者与接受以芬太尼替代瑞芬太尼的标准对照患者的恢复情况。
本研究设计为一项随机、前瞻性、单盲对照研究。第1组为对照组,接受0.03 mg/kg咪达唑仑、1 μg/kg芬太尼,初始丙泊酚输注速率为140 μg/kg/min。第2组接受0.03 mg/kg咪达唑仑,瑞芬太尼:丙泊酚(1:500),初始丙泊酚输注速率为40 μg/kg/min。观察指标包括对言语指令的反应时间、Aldrete评分为9分、麻醉后出院评分系统评分为7分以及数字符号替换测试评估。
47名受试者进入本研究。两组的基线结果相似。第2组受试者恢复更早(P <.005),诱导(0.8±0.4对1.2±0.6 mg/kg;均值±标准差,P <.01)和深度镇静维持(46±9对131±17 μg/kg/min;P <.005)所需丙泊酚更少。生命体征存在微小差异。
本研究表明,与芬太尼方案相比,该瑞芬太尼方案恢复明显更快,丙泊酚用量明显更少。