Suppr超能文献

肝硬化门诊患者上消化道内镜检查时的镇静:一项比较丙泊酚和芬太尼与咪达唑仑和芬太尼的随机对照试验。

Sedation during upper GI endoscopy in cirrhotic outpatients: a randomized, controlled trial comparing propofol and fentanyl with midazolam and fentanyl.

机构信息

Disciplina de Gastroenterologia Clínica, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil.

出版信息

Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Jan;73(1):45-51, 51.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.09.025.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Patients with liver cirrhosis frequently undergo diagnostic or therapeutic upper GI endoscopy (UGIE), and the liver disease might impair the metabolism of drugs usually administered for sedation.

OBJECTIVE AND SETTING

To compare sedation with a combination of propofol plus fentanyl and midazolam plus fentanyl in cirrhotic outpatients undergoing UGIE.

DESIGN

A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted between February 2008 and February 2009.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS

Efficacy (proportion of complete procedures using the initial proposed sedation scheme), safety (occurrence of sedation-related complications), and recovery time were measured.

RESULTS

Two hundred ten cirrhotic patients referred for UGIE were randomized to 2 groups: midazolam group (0.05 mg/kg plus fentanyl 50 μg intravenously) or propofol group (0.25 mg/kg plus fentanyl 50 μg intravenously). There were no differences between groups regarding age, sex, weight, etiology of cirrhosis, and Child-Pugh or American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. Sedation with propofol was more efficacious (100% vs 88.2%; P < .001) and had a shorter recovery time than sedation with midazolam (16.23 ± 6.84 minutes and 27.40 ± 17.19 minutes, respectively; P < .001). Complication rates were similar in both groups (14% vs 7.3%; P = .172).

LIMITATIONS

Single-blind study; sample size.

CONCLUSION

Both sedation schemes were safe in this setting. Sedation with propofol plus fentanyl was more efficacious with a shorter recovery time compared with midazolam plus fentanyl. Therefore, the former scheme is an alternative when sedating cirrhotic patients undergoing UGIE.

摘要

背景

患有肝硬化的患者经常需要进行诊断或治疗性上消化道内镜检查(UGIE),而肝脏疾病可能会影响通常用于镇静的药物的代谢。

目的和背景

比较肝硬化门诊患者行 UGIE 时使用丙泊酚加芬太尼与咪达唑仑加芬太尼联合镇静的效果。

设计

这是一项于 2008 年 2 月至 2009 年 2 月进行的前瞻性、随机、对照试验。

主要观察指标

疗效(使用初始建议镇静方案完成所有操作的比例)、安全性(镇静相关并发症的发生情况)和恢复时间。

结果

210 例因 UGIE 而就诊的肝硬化患者被随机分为 2 组:咪达唑仑组(0.05 mg/kg 静脉注射芬太尼 50 μg)或丙泊酚组(0.25 mg/kg 静脉注射芬太尼 50 μg)。2 组患者在年龄、性别、体重、肝硬化病因、Child-Pugh 或美国麻醉医师协会分级方面均无差异。与咪达唑仑相比,丙泊酚镇静效果更优(100%比 88.2%;P <.001),恢复时间更短(分别为 16.23 ± 6.84 分钟和 27.40 ± 17.19 分钟;P <.001)。2 组并发症发生率相似(14%比 7.3%;P =.172)。

局限性

单盲研究;样本量小。

结论

在该环境下,这 2 种镇静方案均安全。与咪达唑仑加芬太尼相比,丙泊酚加芬太尼镇静效果更优,恢复时间更短。因此,对于行 UGIE 的肝硬化患者,前者是一种替代镇静方案。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验