O'Brien J F, Falk J L, Carey B E, Malone L C
Department of Emergency Medicine, Orlando Regional Medical Center, Florida 32806.
Ann Emerg Med. 1991 Jun;20(6):644-7. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(05)82384-4.
We studied the hypothesis that rectal thiopental is an effective agent for emergency department pediatric sedation and may have advantages over a more traditional regimen.
Rectal thiopental 25 mg/kg was compared with the combination of meperidine 2 mg/kg, promethazine 1 mg/kg, and chlorpromazine 1 mg/kg in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study.
Children between 18 months and 6 years of age presenting to our teaching hospital ED for laceration repair were entered after the clinical decision was made to sedate. Patients with altered sensorium, medical contraindications to sedation, or medication allergy were excluded.
After informed consent, each patient received IM injection (drug combination or placebo) and rectal suspension (rectal thiopental or placebo) simultaneously.
Vital signs, pulse oximetry, and pediatric Glasgow Coma Scores were recorded before and every 15 minutes after sedation until discharge. Intradermal lidocaine and suturing began when the patient appeared adequately sedated, and response was numerically scored. Patients were discharged when able to stand. Twenty-nine patients 34 +/- 13 months old were studied. Fifteen patients received rectal thiopental, and 14 received the drug combination. Analysis using the Wilcoxon two-sample test revealed no differences in age, sex, weight, or wound location between groups. The time course of sedation was different for the two treatment regimens. At 15 and 30 minutes after administration, patients who received rectal thiopental were more deeply sedated than those who received the drug combination, as evidenced by significantly lower Glasgow Coma Scores (P less than .05). Accordingly, time from medication administration to suturing was 29 +/- 12 minutes in the thiopental group and 54 +/- 33 minutes (P less than .01) in the drug combination group. Patients in the thiopental group also recovered more quickly and were discharged approximately one-half hour earlier than those in the drug combination group (89 +/- 25 vs 120 +/- 44 minutes, P less than .05). No difference in response to lidocaine injection or suturing was demonstrated between the groups. Laceration repair time was comparable between the groups. There were eight sedation failures (three of 15 in thiopental group and five of 14 in drug combination group, P = NS). Vital signs remained stable, no adverse reactions occurred, and no patient had decreased oxygen saturation to less than 95%.
Rectal thiopental is superior to this drug combination for pediatric sedation because it can be administered painlessly, has a more rapid onset and offset of action, and is of equal safety and efficacy at the dosage studied.
我们研究了这样一个假设,即直肠给予硫喷妥钠是急诊科用于小儿镇静的一种有效药物,且可能比更传统的用药方案具有优势。
在一项前瞻性、随机、双盲研究中,将25mg/kg的直肠硫喷妥钠与2mg/kg哌替啶、1mg/kg异丙嗪和1mg/kg氯丙嗪的联合用药进行比较。
在我们教学医院急诊科因伤口缝合前来就诊的18个月至6岁儿童,在临床决定给予镇静后纳入研究。排除意识改变、有镇静药物禁忌证或药物过敏的患者。
在获得知情同意后,每位患者同时接受肌肉注射(联合用药或安慰剂)和直肠混悬液(直肠硫喷妥钠或安慰剂)。
记录镇静前及镇静后每隔15分钟直至出院时的生命体征、脉搏血氧饱和度及小儿格拉斯哥昏迷评分。当患者看起来镇静充分时开始给予皮内利多卡因并进行缝合,并对反应进行数字评分。患者能够站立时即可出院。研究了29名年龄为34±13个月的患者。15名患者接受直肠硫喷妥钠,14名患者接受联合用药。使用Wilcoxon双样本检验分析显示,两组在年龄、性别、体重或伤口部位方面无差异。两种治疗方案的镇静时间进程不同。给药后15分钟和30分钟时,接受直肠硫喷妥钠的患者比接受联合用药的患者镇静更深,格拉斯哥昏迷评分显著更低(P<0.05)即可证明。因此,硫喷妥钠组从给药到缝合的时间为29±12分钟,联合用药组为54±33分钟(P<0.01)。硫喷妥钠组的患者恢复也更快,比联合用药组提前约半小时出院(89±25分钟对120±44分钟,P<0.05)。两组之间在对利多卡因注射或缝合的反应方面无差异。两组的伤口缝合时间相当。有8例镇静失败(硫喷妥钠组15例中有3例,联合用药组14例中有5例,P=无显著性差异)。生命体征保持稳定,未发生不良反应,且无患者的氧饱和度降至95%以下。
直肠硫喷妥钠在小儿镇静方面优于这种联合用药,因为它可以无痛给药,起效和作用消失更快,且在所研究的剂量下安全性和有效性相当。