Mair P, Mutz N, Stroschneider E, Luger T J, Morawetz R
Klinik für Anästhesie und allgemeine Intensivtherapie, Universität Innsbruck.
Anasth Intensivther Notfallmed. 1990 Jan;25 Suppl 1:34-8.
The objectives of this study were to compare two narcotic/benzodiazepine combinations given either as continuous infusion or intermittent bolus injections in neurosurgical patients. 24 patients scheduled for elective craniotomy were investigated. They were assigned randomly to four different groups for treatment. Groups 1 and 2 received a combination of midazolam and fentanyl, groups 3 and 4 a combination of diazepam and fentanyl. Anaesthesia was maintained either by continuous infusion (groups 1 and 3) or intermittent bolus injections (groups 2 and 4). At six key intervals cardiovascular variables were compared. Furthermore, total drug dosage requirements were measured and compared. Except for measurement 3 (skin incision), cardiovascular dynamics were not markedly different between bolus and infusion groups. Haemodynamic response to skin incision was less in both bolus groups. Furthermore, the bolus technique revealed a non-significant reduction in total drug dosage requirements in the bolus groups. Our data indicate that for neurosurgical anaesthesia conventional bolus injection of intravenous anaesthetics is superior to continuous infusion with respect to intraoperative haemodynamics. The typically reduced level of pain with short peaks only, characteristic for neurosurgical operations, is one of the factors contributing to these surprising results. Furthermore, the simple method of infusion chosen influences the results decisively. Certain advantages might be achieved by the use of sophisticated pharmacokinetic infusion models. Total drug dosage requirements were reduced in the bolus groups mainly because of the typical anaesthetic requirements of craniotomy, disposing it for bolus technique.
本研究的目的是比较两种麻醉药/苯二氮䓬类药物组合在神经外科手术患者中持续输注或间断推注给药的效果。对24例计划进行择期开颅手术的患者进行了研究。他们被随机分为四组接受不同治疗。第1组和第2组接受咪达唑仑和芬太尼的组合,第3组和第4组接受地西泮和芬太尼的组合。麻醉维持方式为持续输注(第1组和第3组)或间断推注(第2组和第4组)。在六个关键时间点比较心血管变量。此外,测量并比较了总药物剂量需求。除测量3(皮肤切开)外,推注组和输注组之间的心血管动力学无明显差异。两个推注组对皮肤切开的血流动力学反应均较小。此外,推注技术显示推注组的总药物剂量需求有不显著的降低。我们的数据表明,对于神经外科麻醉,就术中血流动力学而言,传统的静脉麻醉药推注优于持续输注。神经外科手术特有的仅出现短暂峰值的典型疼痛减轻水平是导致这些惊人结果的因素之一。此外,所选择的简单输注方法对结果有决定性影响。使用复杂的药代动力学输注模型可能会带来某些优势。推注组总药物剂量需求降低主要是由于开颅手术的典型麻醉需求,使其适合推注技术。