Suppr超能文献

使用希卡尼可视探条在清醒插管期间右美托咪定与瑞芬太尼用于镇静的随机、双盲、对照试验

Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanil for sedation during awake intubation using a Shikani optical stylet: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial.

作者信息

Xu Ting, Li Min, Ni Cheng, Guo Xiang-Yang

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, 100191, China.

出版信息

BMC Anesthesiol. 2016 Aug 2;16(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s12871-016-0219-9.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine versus remifentanil for sedation during awake intubation using a Shikani optical stylet (SOS).

METHODS

Sixty-eight patients with cervical trauma or severe cervical spondylosis undergoing cervical spinal surgery were enrolled in this prospective study. They were randomly assigned to receive dexmedetomidine (Group D) or remifentanil (Group R). In Group D, the patients received an intravenous loading dose of dexmedetomidine 1 μg · kg(-1) over 10 min followed by a continuous infusion of 0.7 μg · kg(-1) · h(-1). In Group R, a target-controlled infusion of remifentanil was administered to achieve a plasma concentration of 2.5 ng · ml(-1), increased to 3 ng · ml(-1) 10 min later. An endotracheal tube was inserted using a SOS under dexmedetomidine or remifentanil sedation after topical anesthesia to the airway. Midazolam was given as rescue sedation. We recorded the first attempt intubation success rate, the dose of midazolam, duration of intubation, Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score, tracheal tube tolerance score, duration of drug infusion, adverse events and patient satisfaction score.

RESULTS

The RSS score was significantly higher in Group D than in Group R. First attempt success rate, rescue midazolam dose and the duration of intubation did not differ between the groups. Patients in Group R were significantly more tolerant of the tracheal tube. The incidence of hypoxia was significantly higher in Group R than Group D, but there was no significant difference in the incidence of other adverse events between the groups. The hemodynamic responses of the two groups were similar, but more patients in Group R were able to recall airway instrumentation.

CONCLUSIONS

Both dexmedetomidine and remifentanil are effective sedatives for awake intubation using an SOS. Although the first attempt success rates were similar, patients sedated with remifentanil tolerated the tracheal tube better after intubation with moderately increased risk of desaturation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.chictr.org.cn ; ChiCTR-TRC-13003052 (February 4th, 2013).

摘要

背景

本研究旨在比较右美托咪定与瑞芬太尼在使用希卡尼可视喉镜(SOS)进行清醒插管期间的镇静效果及安全性。

方法

68例因颈椎创伤或严重颈椎病需行颈椎手术的患者纳入本前瞻性研究。他们被随机分配接受右美托咪定(D组)或瑞芬太尼(R组)。D组患者在10分钟内静脉注射负荷剂量右美托咪定1μg·kg⁻¹,随后持续输注0.7μg·kg⁻¹·h⁻¹。R组采用瑞芬太尼靶控输注,初始血浆浓度设定为2.5ng·ml⁻¹,10分钟后增至3ng·ml⁻¹。在气道表面麻醉后,于右美托咪定或瑞芬太尼镇静下使用SOS插入气管导管。给予咪达唑仑作为补救镇静。记录首次插管成功率、咪达唑仑剂量、插管持续时间、 Ramsay镇静评分(RSS)、气管导管耐受评分、药物输注持续时间、不良事件及患者满意度评分。

结果

D组的RSS评分显著高于R组。两组间首次尝试成功率、补救性咪达唑仑剂量及插管持续时间无差异。R组患者对气管导管的耐受性明显更好。R组的低氧血症发生率显著高于D组,但两组间其他不良事件发生率无显著差异。两组的血流动力学反应相似,但R组更多患者能回忆起气道操作过程。

结论

右美托咪定和瑞芬太尼都是使用SOS进行清醒插管的有效镇静剂。尽管首次尝试成功率相似,但瑞芬太尼镇静的患者插管后对气管导管耐受性更好,不过去饱和风险略有增加。

试验注册

www.chictr.org.cn;ChiCTR-TRC-13003052(2013年2月4日)

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ad1c/4970200/ec00a1ebfdb4/12871_2016_219_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验