Akcaboy Z N, Akcaboy E Y, Albayrak D, Altinoren B, Dikmen B, Gogus N
Department of Anesthesiology, The Ministry of Health Ankara Numune Research and Training Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2006 Jul;50(6):736-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2006.01047.x.
This prospective, randomized trial was designed to test the hypothesis that continuous infusion of low-dose remifentanil can provide effective analgesia, sedation, amnesia, patient comfort and stable recovery profile without respiratory depression when compared with propofol infusion during colonoscopy.
One hundred patients were randomly assigned to receive either remifentanil (group R, 0.5 microg/kg followed by 0.05 microg/kg/min, n = 50) or propofol (group P, 0.5 mg/kg followed by 50 microg/kg/min, n = 50). Supplemental doses of remifentanil 12.5 microg in group R and propofol 10 mg in group P were given to treat complaints of moderate to severe pain and discomfort. Hemodynamic and respiratory data, pain, discomfort and sedation scores, patient and gastroenterologist satisfaction and recovery profiles were recorded.
The duration of colonoscopy was longer in group P. The mean arterial pressure, heart rate and end-tidal CO2 remained stable during the procedure and were comparable between the groups. After bolus injection of the study drugs, the respiratory rate and oxygen saturation values were lower in group R than in group P. Only one patient in group R required airway support. Pain and discomfort scores were better in group R than in group P. Sedation levels were higher in group P than in group R. Group P needed more supplemental doses than group R. The time to reach an Aldrete score of nine or more was shorter in group R, but discharge times were similar in the two groups. Amnesia was better in group P. Nausea and vomiting were more frequent in group R during the recovery phase.
Low-dose remifentanil infusion with intermittent bolus injections can provide adequate sedation, amnesia and better analgesia than propofol infusion during colonoscopy. However, remifentanil-induced nausea and vomiting may be a problem during the recovery phase.
本前瞻性随机试验旨在验证以下假设:与结肠镜检查期间输注丙泊酚相比,持续输注低剂量瑞芬太尼可提供有效的镇痛、镇静、遗忘作用,使患者舒适,并具有稳定的恢复过程且无呼吸抑制。
100例患者被随机分为两组,分别接受瑞芬太尼(R组,负荷剂量0.5μg/kg,随后以0.05μg/kg/min持续输注,n = 50)或丙泊酚(P组,负荷剂量0.5mg/kg,随后以50μg/kg/min持续输注,n = 50)。R组给予12.5μg补充剂量的瑞芬太尼,P组给予10mg补充剂量的丙泊酚,以治疗中度至重度疼痛和不适主诉。记录血流动力学和呼吸数据、疼痛、不适和镇静评分、患者及胃肠病学家满意度以及恢复情况。
P组结肠镜检查持续时间更长。术中平均动脉压、心率和呼气末二氧化碳分压保持稳定,两组间具有可比性。静脉推注研究药物后,R组的呼吸频率和血氧饱和度值低于P组。R组仅1例患者需要气道支持。R组的疼痛和不适评分优于P组。P组的镇静水平高于R组。P组比R组需要更多的补充剂量。R组达到Aldrete评分9分或更高的时间更短,但两组的出院时间相似。P组的遗忘作用更好。R组在恢复阶段恶心和呕吐更频繁。
在结肠镜检查期间,低剂量瑞芬太尼输注联合间歇性推注可提供比丙泊酚输注更充分的镇静、遗忘作用和更好的镇痛效果。然而,瑞芬太尼引起的恶心和呕吐在恢复阶段可能是个问题。