Suppr超能文献

在急诊科使用异丙酚进行程序镇静和镇痛:与咪达唑仑的比较。

The use of propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department: a comparison with midazolam.

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, USM, Kubang Kerian 16150, Malaysia.

出版信息

Emerg Med J. 2011 Oct;28(10):861-5. doi: 10.1136/emj.2009.085019. Epub 2010 Nov 23.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of propofol as an alternative agent for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED) and to make a comparison between two different sedative (propofol vs midazolam) drugs used in combination with fentanyl.

OBJECTIVES

To compare outcomes between a combination of fentanyl and propofol with fentanyl and midazolam in patients during and after PSA.

METHODOLOGY

A randomised single blinded control trial carried out in the ED of a university hospital. 40 patients were randomly allocated equally into two groups: group A, 20 subjects received intravenous fentanyl 3 μg/kg as a bolus dose and a titration maximum bolus dose of propofol 1 mg/kg followed by a maximum titration top-up of 0.5 mg/kg if needed; group B, 20 subjects received intravenous fentanyl 3 μg/kg as a bolus dose and a titration maximum bolus dose of midazolam 0.1 mg/kg and a maximum titration top-up of 0.1 mg/kg if needed. The target sedation level was a Ramsay score of 3 or 4. Outcomes included the presence of any adverse events related to PSA and time to discharge. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the two groups.

RESULTS

None of the patients developed any significant adverse events during and after procedures. The mean length of stay in the propofol and midazolam groups was 29.25 (11.03) and 71.75 (60.64) min, respectively (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Both propofol and midazolam given at the recommended doses were equally safe and effective for PSA in the ED. The propofol group was discharged much earlier than to the midazolam group.

摘要

简介

本研究旨在确定丙泊酚作为急诊(ED)程序镇静和镇痛(PSA)替代药物的有效性,并比较两种不同镇静药物(丙泊酚与咪达唑仑)联合芬太尼的效果。

目的

比较 PSA 期间和之后芬太尼和丙泊酚与芬太尼和咪达唑仑联合使用的两种不同药物的结果。

方法

在一家大学医院的 ED 进行了一项随机、单盲对照试验。将 40 名患者随机平均分配到两组:A 组 20 名患者接受静脉注射芬太尼 3μg/kg 作为推注剂量,然后以 1mg/kg 的丙泊酚滴定最大推注剂量,如果需要,再以 0.5mg/kg 的丙泊酚滴定最大追加剂量;B 组 20 名患者接受静脉注射芬太尼 3μg/kg 作为推注剂量,然后以 0.1mg/kg 的咪达唑仑滴定最大推注剂量,如果需要,再以 0.1mg/kg 的咪达唑仑滴定最大追加剂量。目标镇静水平为 Ramsay 评分 3 或 4 分。结果包括与 PSA 相关的任何不良事件的发生情况和出院时间。使用 Mann-Whitney U 检验比较两组。

结果

两组患者在操作过程中和操作后均未发生任何明显的不良事件。丙泊酚组和咪达唑仑组的平均住院时间分别为 29.25(11.03)和 71.75(60.64)分钟(p<0.001)。

结论

在 ED 中,以推荐剂量给予丙泊酚和咪达唑仑进行 PSA 同样安全有效。丙泊酚组的出院时间明显早于咪达唑仑组。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验