Snellen F, Lauwers P, Demeyere R, Byttebier G, Van Aken H
Department of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital, Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.
Intensive Care Med. 1990;16(5):312-6. doi: 10.1007/BF01706356.
Midazolam and propofol were compared in an open randomized study for postoperative sedation during 12 h of mechanical ventilation in 40 patients following coronary artery bypass grafting. After an intravenous loading dose of midazolam (50 micrograms.kg-1) or propofol (500 micrograms.kg-1), a titrated continuous infusion was administered of midazolam (mean dose 38.1 micrograms.kg-1.h-1 (SEM 2.6)) or propofol (mean dose 909 micrograms.kg-1.h-1 (SEM 100)) together with a narcotic analgesic infusion. During mechanical ventilation midazolam and propofol produced a similar quality of sedation, but recovery (midazolam 66 min (SEM 16); propofol 24 min (SEM 7)) and weaning from the ventilator (midazolam 243 min (SEM 44); propofol 154 min (SEM 33)) where faster with propofol. In the 2 groups administration of an intravenous loading dose caused a significant decrease in mean arterial pressure but hemodynamic tolerance during maintenance infusion was good.
在一项开放性随机研究中，对40例冠状动脉搭桥术后患者在机械通气12小时期间使用咪达唑仑和丙泊酚进行术后镇静的效果进行了比较。静脉注射负荷剂量的咪达唑仑（50微克/千克）或丙泊酚（500微克/千克）后，给予咪达唑仑（平均剂量38.1微克/千克·小时（标准误2.6））或丙泊酚（平均剂量909微克/千克·小时（标准误100））的滴定持续输注，并同时给予麻醉性镇痛药输注。在机械通气期间，咪达唑仑和丙泊酚产生的镇静质量相似，但丙泊酚组的恢复时间（咪达唑仑66分钟（标准误16）；丙泊酚24分钟（标准误7））和脱机时间（咪达唑仑243分钟（标准误44）；丙泊酚154分钟（标准误33））更快。在两组中，静脉注射负荷剂量均导致平均动脉压显著下降，但维持输注期间的血流动力学耐受性良好。
