Suppr超能文献

基于双频谱指数与麻醉浓度指导的术后恢复方案比较。

Postoperative recovery with bispectral index versus anesthetic concentration-guided protocols.

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.

出版信息

Anesthesiology. 2013 May;118(5):1113-22. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31828604ab.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Use of the bispectral index (BIS) monitor has been suggested to decrease excessive anesthetic drug administration, leading to improved recovery from general anesthesia. The purpose of this substudy of the B-Unaware and BAG-RECALL trials was to assess whether a BIS-based anesthetic protocol was superior to an end-tidal anesthetic concentration-based protocol in decreasing recovery time and postoperative complications.

METHODS

Patients at high risk for awareness were randomized to either BIS-guided or end-tidal anesthetic concentration-guided general anesthesia in the original trials. Outcomes included time to postanesthesia care unit discharge readiness, time to achieve a postoperative Aldrete score of 9-10, intensive care unit length of stay, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and severe postoperative pain. Univariate Cox regression and chi-square tests were used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

The BIS cohort was not superior in time to postanesthesia care unit discharge readiness (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1; n = 2,949), time to achieve an Aldrete score of 9-10 (hazard ratio, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.4; n = 706), intensive care unit length of stay (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.9-1.1; n = 2,074), incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (absolute risk reduction, -0.5%; 95% CI, -5.8 to 4.8%; n = 789), or incidence of severe postoperative pain (absolute risk reduction, 4.4%; 95% CI, -2.3 to 11.1%; n = 759).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients at high risk for awareness, the BIS-guided protocol is not superior to an anesthetic concentration-guided protocol in time needed for postoperative recovery or in the incidences of common postoperative complications.

摘要

背景

使用双频谱指数(BIS)监测仪被认为可以减少过量的麻醉药物使用,从而改善全身麻醉后的恢复。本研究是 B-Unaware 和 BAG-RECALL 试验的子研究,旨在评估基于 BIS 的麻醉方案是否优于基于呼气末麻醉浓度的方案,以减少恢复时间和术后并发症。

方法

在原始试验中,高意识风险的患者被随机分为 BIS 指导或呼气末麻醉浓度指导的全身麻醉。结果包括麻醉后护理单元出院准备时间、达到术后 Aldrete 评分为 9-10 的时间、重症监护病房住院时间、术后恶心和呕吐以及严重术后疼痛。采用单变量 Cox 回归和卡方检验进行统计分析。

结果

BIS 组在麻醉后护理单元出院准备时间(风险比,1.0;95%置信区间,1.0-1.1;n=2949)、达到 Aldrete 评分为 9-10 的时间(风险比,1.2;95%置信区间,1.0-1.4;n=706)、重症监护病房住院时间(风险比,1.0;95%置信区间,0.9-1.1;n=2074)、术后恶心和呕吐发生率(绝对风险降低,-0.5%;95%置信区间,-5.8 至 4.8%;n=789)或严重术后疼痛发生率(绝对风险降低,4.4%;95%置信区间,-2.3 至 11.1%;n=759)方面均无优势。

结论

在高意识风险的患者中,BIS 指导的方案在术后恢复所需时间或常见术后并发症的发生率方面并不优于麻醉浓度指导的方案。

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