Suppr超能文献

一项比较三种在可弯曲支气管镜检查期间镇静方案的随机双盲对照试验:右美托咪定、阿芬太尼和利多卡因。

A randomized double-blind controlled trial comparing three sedation regimens during flexible bronchoscopy: Dexmedetomidine, alfentanil and lidocaine.

作者信息

Riachy Moussa, Khayat Georges, Ibrahim Ihab, Aoun Zeina, Dabar Georges, Bazarbachi Taha, Khalil Nadine, Habr Bassem

机构信息

Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Hôtel Dieu de France University Hospital, Beirut, Lebanon.

出版信息

Clin Respir J. 2018 Apr;12(4):1407-1415. doi: 10.1111/crj.12669. Epub 2017 Aug 9.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

No standardized sedation protocol is available for flexible bronchoscopy (FB).

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of three regimens used for sedation during FB.

METHODS

This randomized double-blind controlled trial assessed patients undergoing bronchoscopy and receiving lidocaine alone (C) or combined with dexmedetomidine (D) or alfentanil (A). Tolerance was assessed using the bronchoscopy score, and level of sedation was assessed using the Nursing Instrument for the Communication of Sedation. Safety was evaluated in terms of pulmonary function and vital signs.

RESULTS

A total of 162 patients were enrolled. The bronchoscopy score was identical in all groups. Group D subjects were the most sedated (P = .013), whereas group A subjects were the least agitated. Linear regression showed a negative association between bronchoscopy score and age in A (β = -0.06; P = .001). Positive predictors of bronchoscopy score were female gender (β = 1.96; P = .003) in D and obesity (β = 2.41; P = .012), longer procedures (β = 0.08; P = .009) and female gender (β = 1.15; P = .038) in C. Longer procedures (β = -0.12; P = .010) was a negative predictor of bronchoscopy score in D. Desaturation, hypoxia and heart rate changes were most prevalent in group A. Hypotension was mostly observed in D.

CONCLUSIONS

No consistent differences were present between the three regimens; however, each was more appropriate in certain patient profiles. We consequently proposed a protocol as a first step towards standardizing sedation practice in FB in a patient-tailored manner. A more comprehensive and detailed protocol including other sedative agents with their corresponding doses should be developed.

摘要

引言

目前尚无用于可弯曲支气管镜检查(FB)的标准化镇静方案。

目的

本研究旨在评估FB检查期间使用的三种镇静方案的有效性和安全性。

方法

这项随机双盲对照试验评估了接受支气管镜检查并单独使用利多卡因(C组)或联合右美托咪定(D组)或阿芬太尼(A组)的患者。使用支气管镜检查评分评估耐受性,使用镇静沟通护理工具评估镇静水平。从肺功能和生命体征方面评估安全性。

结果

共纳入162例患者。所有组的支气管镜检查评分相同。D组患者的镇静程度最高(P = 0.013),而A组患者的躁动程度最低。线性回归显示,A组中支气管镜检查评分与年龄呈负相关(β = -0.06;P = 0.001)。D组中支气管镜检查评分的阳性预测因素为女性(β = 1.96;P = 0.003),C组中为肥胖(β = 2.41;P = 0.012)、操作时间较长(β = 0.08;P = 0.009)和女性(β = 1.15;P = 0.038)。操作时间较长(β = -0.12;P = 0.010)是D组支气管镜检查评分的负预测因素。A组中去饱和、低氧和心率变化最为普遍。D组中低血压最为常见。

结论

三种方案之间没有一致的差异;然而,每种方案在某些患者特征中更为合适。因此,我们提出了一个方案,作为以患者个体化方式使FB镇静实践标准化的第一步。应制定一个更全面、详细的方案,包括其他镇静剂及其相应剂量。

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