1 Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Dr Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Oncology Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey ; 2 Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Ataturk Chest Disease and Thoracic Surgery Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey ; 3 Gazi University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Anesthesiology, Ankara, Turkey ; 4 Department of Chest Diseases and Tuberculosis, Ataturk Chest Disease and Thoracic Surgery Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
J Thorac Dis. 2014 Jun;6(6):742-51. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2014.04.10.
We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of ketamine-midazolam and ketamine-propofol combinations for procedural sedation in endobronchial ultrasound guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA).
Sixty patients who were undergoing EBUS-TBNA were included in this study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 was given 0.25 mg/kg intravenous (iv) ketamine, 2 min later than 0.05 mg/kg iv midazolam. Group 2 received 0.125 mg/kg ketamine-propofol mixture (ketofol), 2 min subsequent to injection of 0.25 mg/kg each. Sedation was maintained with additional doses of ketamine 0.25 mg/kg, and ketofol 0.125 mg/kg each in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. Blood pressure, heart rate (HR), peripheral oxygen saturation, respiratory rate (RR), Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS), and severity of cough were recorded prior to and after administration of sedation agent in the beginning of fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) and every 5 min of the procedure. The consumption of the agents, the satisfactions of the bronchoscopist and the patients, and the recovery time were also recorded.
HR in the 10(th) min and RSS value in the 35(th) min of induction in Group 1 were higher than the other group (P<0.05). The recovery time in Group 1 was statistically longer than Group 2 (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between groups with respect to other parameters (P>0.05).
It was concluded that both ketamine-midazolam and ketamine-propofol combinations for sedation during EBUS-TBNA were similarly effective and safe without remarkable side effects.
比较氯胺酮-咪达唑仑和氯胺酮-丙泊酚联合应用于支气管内超声引导经支气管针吸活检术(EBUS-TBNA)中镇静的有效性和安全性。
本研究纳入了 60 例接受 EBUS-TBNA 的患者。患者被随机分为两组。第 1 组给予 0.25mg/kg 静脉(iv)氯胺酮,2 分钟后给予 0.05mg/kg iv 咪达唑仑。第 2 组给予 0.125mg/kg 氯胺酮-丙泊酚混合物(氯氟醚),随后给予 0.25mg/kg 各 2 分钟。第 1 组和第 2 组分别在追加 0.25mg/kg 氯胺酮和 0.125mg/kg 氯氟醚以维持镇静。记录镇静剂给药前后、纤维支气管镜检查(FOB)开始时和检查过程中每 5 分钟的血压、心率(HR)、外周血氧饱和度、呼吸频率(RR)、Ramsay 镇静评分(RSS)和咳嗽严重程度。还记录了药物的消耗、支气管镜医师和患者的满意度以及恢复时间。
第 1 组诱导后第 10 分钟的 HR 和第 35 分钟的 RSS 值高于其他组(P<0.05)。第 1 组的恢复时间明显长于第 2 组(P<0.05)。其他参数两组间无统计学差异(P>0.05)。
氯胺酮-咪达唑仑和氯胺酮-丙泊酚联合应用于 EBUS-TBNA 镇静时同样有效且安全,无明显副作用。