Erbesler Zeynel Abidin, Bakan Nurten, Karaören Gülşah Yılmaz, Erkmen Muhammet Ali
Van Erciş State Hospital, Van, Turkey.
Department of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Ministry of Health Ümraniye Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.
Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2013 Oct;41(5):156-61. doi: 10.5152/TJAR.2013.36. Epub 2013 May 23.
To compare the effects of esmolol (β-blocker) and dexmedetomidine (α-2-agonist) on patients' clinical course and cost of application of controlled hypotension during middle-ear surgery.
Fifty ASA I-II patients scheduled for tympanomastoidectomy were enrolled in the study and were randomized into two groups. Bispectral Index (BIS) and neuromuscular monitoring (TOF GUARD-SX) were applied to all patients. In group E (n=25), 0.5 mg kg(-1) min(-1) esmolol was infused over 1 min before induction and titrated over a range of 10-200 μg kg(-1) min(-1); in group D (n=25), 0.5 μg kg(-1) dexmedetomidine was infused over 10 minutes before induction, and then titrated over a range of 0.2-0.7 μg kg(-1) hr(-1) to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) between 55 and 65 mmHg and BIS 40-50 after induction. In both groups, 0.25 μg kg(-1) min(-1) remifentanil infusion was used for anaesthesia maintenance. Maintaining end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2) at 35-40, using 1 MAC sevoflurane in 50% O2-air mixture, mechanical ventilation was started. The effects of both agents on hemodynamic conditions [(heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP)], neuromuscular blockage [onset of action (OA), duration of clinical action (DCA), recovery index (RI)], amount of bleeding, surgeon satisfaction, and total dexmedetomidine and esmolol doses used during the intervention were recorded and costs were compared between the groups.
No significant difference was present in hemodynamic conditions, bleeding scores or surgeon satisfaction between groups. Although OA was similar in both groups, DCA and RI were significantly higher in group D. Cost was significantly higher with esmolol than dexmedetomidine.
We conclude that although both agents are feasible in inducing hypotensive anaesthesia, while neuromuscular block time prolonged by using dexmedetomidine, higher costs were observed with esmolol.
比较艾司洛尔(β受体阻滞剂)和右美托咪定(α-2激动剂)对中耳手术患者控制性低血压临床过程及应用成本的影响。
50例拟行鼓室乳突切除术的美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)I-II级患者纳入本研究,并随机分为两组。所有患者均应用脑电双频指数(BIS)和神经肌肉监测(TOF GUARD-SX)。E组(n = 25),诱导前1分钟内静脉输注艾司洛尔0.5 mg·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹,然后在10 - 200 μg·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹范围内滴定;D组(n = 25),诱导前10分钟内静脉输注右美托咪定0.5 μg·kg⁻¹,然后在0.2 - 0.7 μg·kg⁻¹·hr⁻¹范围内滴定,以维持诱导后平均动脉压(MAP)在55至65 mmHg之间,BIS在40至50之间。两组均采用0.25 μg·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹瑞芬太尼静脉输注维持麻醉。使用50%氧气-空气混合气体中1最低肺泡有效浓度(MAC)的七氟醚,维持呼气末二氧化碳分压(EtCO₂)在35 - 40,开始机械通气。记录两种药物对血流动力学状况[心率(HR),平均动脉压(MAP)]、神经肌肉阻滞[起效时间(OA)、临床作用持续时间(DCA)、恢复指数(RI)]、出血量、外科医生满意度以及干预期间使用的右美托咪定和艾司洛尔总剂量,并比较两组成本。
两组间血流动力学状况、出血评分或外科医生满意度无显著差异。虽然两组OA相似,但D组的DCA和RI显著更高。艾司洛尔的成本显著高于右美托咪定。
我们得出结论,虽然两种药物在诱导低血压麻醉方面都是可行的,但使用右美托咪定延长了神经肌肉阻滞时间,而艾司洛尔成本更高。