Urquhart M L, White P F
Department of Anesthesia, Stanford University, California.
Anesth Analg. 1989 Mar;68(3):249-54.
Using a randomized, double-blind study design, the intra- and postoperative sedative effects of three intravenous central nervous system depressants were compared in 64 patients during regional anesthesia. After establishing regional anesthesia, methohexital 59 +/- 29 mg IV, etomidate 12.6 +/- 8 mg IV, or midazolam 3.7 +/- 1.5 mg IV (mean dose +/- SD) were infused in a titrated fashion over 5-15 minutes to achieve similar end points of sedation. This level of sedation was then maintained with a variable-rate infusion of either methohexital 180 +/- 65 mg/hr, etomidate 32 +/- 12 mg/hr, or midazolam 7.5 +/- 4 mg/hr (mean dose +/- SD) To maintain a stable level of sedation, changes in the maintenance infusion rate were required more frequently with methohexital (4.6 +/- 3 times) than with etomidate (2.6 +/- 2 times) or midazolam (2.7 +/- 3 times). Decreases in oxygen saturation below 95% were more frequent with midazolam than with methohexital and etomidate, while recall of intraoperative events was less frequent after midazolam. Observer evaluations found less sedation in the methohexital and etomidate groups than in the midazolam group during the early postoperative period. However, the patients' evaluation of residual sedative effects (e.g., postoperative sedation visual analogue scores) and discharge times from the recovery room were similar in all three groups. Nevertheless, patients given midazolam had significantly greater impairment of performance on the digit-symbol substitution test in the early postoperative period than did patients given either methohexital or etomidate.
采用随机双盲研究设计,对64例接受区域麻醉的患者比较了三种静脉注射中枢神经系统抑制剂的术中和术后镇静效果。建立区域麻醉后,分别静脉注射甲己炔巴比妥59±29mg、依托咪酯12.6±8mg或咪达唑仑3.7±1.5mg(平均剂量±标准差),在5至15分钟内滴定输注,以达到相似的镇静终点。然后分别以180±65mg/小时的甲己炔巴比妥、32±12mg/小时的依托咪酯或7.5±4mg/小时的咪达唑仑(平均剂量±标准差)可变速率输注维持该镇静水平。为维持稳定的镇静水平,甲己炔巴比妥组(4.6±3次)比依托咪酯组(2.6±2次)或咪达唑仑组(2.7±3次)更频繁地需要改变维持输注速率。咪达唑仑组氧饱和度低于95%的情况比甲己炔巴比妥组和依托咪酯组更频繁,而咪达唑仑组术后对术中事件的回忆较少。观察者评估发现,术后早期甲己炔巴比妥组和依托咪酯组的镇静程度低于咪达唑仑组。然而,三组患者对残余镇静效果的评估(如术后镇静视觉模拟评分)和从恢复室出院的时间相似。尽管如此,术后早期接受咪达唑仑治疗的患者在数字符号替换测试中的表现受损程度明显大于接受甲己炔巴比妥或依托咪酯治疗的患者。