咪达唑仑与丙泊酚用于区域麻醉期间BIS引导镇静的比较。
Comparison of Midazolam and Propofol for BIS-Guided Sedation During Regional Anaesthesia.
作者信息
Khurana Priyanka, Agarwal Ankit, Verma Rk, Gupta Pk
机构信息
Ex.P.G.Student, Deptt. Of Anaesthesiology, BHU, Varanasi.
出版信息
Indian J Anaesth. 2009 Dec;53(6):662-6.
Regional anaesthesia has become an important anaesthetic technique. Effective sedation is an essential for regional techniques too. This study compares midazolam and propofol in terms of onset & recovery from sedation, dosage and side effects of both the drugs using Bispectral Index monitoring. Ninety eight patients were randomly divided into two groups,one group recieved midazolam infusion while the other recieved propofol infusion until BIS reached 75. We observed Time to reach desired sedation, HR, MABP, time for recovery, dose to reach sedation and for maintenance of sedation and side effects if any. The time to reach required sedation was 11 min in Midazolam group(Group I) while it was 6 min in Propofol group(Group II) (p=0.0). Fall in MABP was greater with propofol. Recovery in with midazolam was slower than with propofol (18.6 +/- 6.5 vs 10.10+/-3.65 min) (p=0.00). We concluded that both midazolam and propofol are effective sedatives, but onset and offset was quicker with propofol, while midazolam was more cardiostable.
区域麻醉已成为一种重要的麻醉技术。有效的镇静对于区域麻醉技术来说也是必不可少的。本研究使用脑电双频指数监测，比较了咪达唑仑和丙泊酚在镇静起效及恢复、药物剂量和副作用方面的差异。98例患者被随机分为两组，一组接受咪达唑仑输注，另一组接受丙泊酚输注，直至脑电双频指数达到75。我们观察了达到所需镇静的时间、心率、平均动脉压、恢复时间、达到镇静及维持镇静的剂量以及是否有副作用。咪达唑仑组（第一组）达到所需镇静的时间为11分钟，而丙泊酚组（第二组）为6分钟（p = 0.0）。丙泊酚导致平均动脉压下降幅度更大。咪达唑仑组的恢复比丙泊酚组慢（18.6±6.5分钟对10.10±3.65分钟）（p = 0.00）。我们得出结论，咪达唑仑和丙泊酚都是有效的镇静剂，但丙泊酚的起效和消退更快，而咪达唑仑对心脏更稳定。
Zotero 插件