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。