Suppr超能文献

[严重烧伤患者休克期镇痛镇静治疗的安全性及效果观察]

[Observation on safety and effects of analgesic and sedative treatment in severely burned patients during shock stage].

作者信息

Li R B, Chen Q, Zhang H Y, Deng H A, Guo G H, Mao Y G, Fu Z H

机构信息

Department of Burns, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, China.

出版信息

Zhonghua Shao Shang Za Zhi. 2018 Apr 20;34(4):197-202. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2018.04.002.

Abstract

To observe the safety and effects of application of analgesic and sedative drugs in severely burned patients during shock stage. One hundred and eighty patients with severe burns, conforming to the study criteria, were admitted to our unit from August 2014 to August 2016. Patients were divided into analgesia and sedation group and control group according to whether receiving analgesic and sedative treatment or not, with 90 cases in each group. Patients in control group received conventional treatment, while those in analgesia and sedation group received analgesic and sedative treatment for 24 hours besides conventional treatment. Before and at drug administration hour 2, 8, 16, and 24, pain degree of patients in two groups was scored by visual analogue scale (VAS). At drug administration hour 2, 8, 16, and 24, sedation degree of patients in two groups was scored by richmond agitation sedation scale, and the success rate of sedation was calculated. Mental state of patients within 24 hours of drug administration was observed, while pulse oxygen saturation (SpO(2)), respiratory rate, heart rate, and blood pressure were observed and dynamically evaluated every 2 hours. The accidental extubation, tachycardia, hypertension, hypoxia, bradycardia, hypotension, urinary retention, and respiratory depression of patients within 24 hours of drug administration were monitored and recorded. Data were processed with analysis of variance for repeated measurement, one-way analysis of variance, test, chi-square test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, and Fisher's exact probability test. (1) The VAS scores of patients in two groups were close before drug administration (=0.675, >0.05). The VAS scores of patients in analgesia and sedation group at drug administration hour 2, 8, 16, and 24 were (3.8±0.4), (3.9±0.6), (3.9±0.5), and (3.9±0.9) points, respectively, significantly lower than (6.0±0.9), (6.0±1.2), (6.2±0.6), and (6.3±0.4) points in control group (=0.785, 0.730, 0.805, 0.895, <0.05). The success rate of sedation of patients in analgesia and sedation group at drug administration hour 2, 8, 16, and 24 were 91.1% (82/90), 86.7% (78/90), 93.3% (84/90), and 90.0% (81/90), respectively, significantly higher than 7.8% (7/90), 6.7% (6/90), 14.4% (13/90), and 5.6% (5/90) in control group (=8.035, 7.946, 8.129, 8.014, <0.05). (2) The respiratory rate of patients in analgesia and sedation group at drug administration hour 8, 16, and 24 were (15.78±0.69), (16.08±0.59), and (16.21±0.20) times per minute, and the heart rate were (87±9), (83±7), and (76±9) times per minute, respectively, significantly lower than (16.80±0.81), (17.09±0.50), and (17.02±0.61) times per minute and (89±8), (86±7), and (85±6) times per minute in control group (=7.655, 7.022, 6.536, -6.931, -7.053, -10.196, <0.01). There were no statistically significant difference in SpO(2), systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure before and at drug administration hour 2, 8, 16, and 24 between the two groups (=3.417, -2.894, -6.501, -3.719, -4.573, 2.336, 3.315, 0.942, -1.583, 1.907, 1.147, -0.968, 0.931, -1.682, 1.076, >0.05). (3) The rates of respiratory depression, hypoxia, bradycardia, urinary retention, and hypotension of patients in the two groups were close ((2)=0.310, >0.05). The rates of hypertension, accidental extubation, and tachycardia of patients in analgesia and sedation group were significantly lower than those in control group ((2)=16.364, 5.143, 73.309, <0.05 or <0.01). Proper application of analgesic and sedative drugs in severely burned patients during shock stage has good clinical effect with low incidence rates of complications.

摘要

观察镇痛镇静药物在重度烧伤患者休克期应用的安全性及效果。2014年8月至2016年8月,我科收治符合研究标准的重度烧伤患者180例。根据是否接受镇痛镇静治疗将患者分为镇痛镇静组和对照组,每组90例。对照组患者接受常规治疗,镇痛镇静组患者在常规治疗基础上接受24小时镇痛镇静治疗。两组患者在给药前及给药后2、8、16、24小时采用视觉模拟评分法(VAS)对疼痛程度进行评分。在给药后2、8、16、24小时,采用里士满躁动镇静量表对两组患者的镇静程度进行评分,并计算镇静成功率。观察给药后24小时内患者的精神状态,每2小时观察并动态评估脉搏血氧饱和度(SpO₂)、呼吸频率、心率和血压。监测并记录给药后24小时内患者的意外拔管、心动过速、高血压、缺氧、心动过缓、低血压、尿潴留及呼吸抑制情况。数据采用重复测量方差分析、单因素方差分析、t检验、卡方检验、Wilcoxon秩和检验及Fisher确切概率检验进行处理。(1)两组患者给药前VAS评分相近(P = 0.675,P>0.05)。镇痛镇静组患者在给药后2、8、16、24小时的VAS评分分别为(3.8±0.4)、(3.9±0.6)、(3.9±0.5)、(3.9±0.9)分,显著低于对照组的(6.0±0.9)、(6.0±1.2)、(6.2±0.6)、(6.3±0.4)分(P = 0.785、0.730、0.805、0.895,P<0.05)。镇痛镇静组患者在给药后2、8、16、24小时的镇静成功率分别为91.1%(82/90)、86.7%(78/90)、93.3%(84/90)、90.0%(81/90),显著高于对照组的7.8%(7/90)、6.7%(6/90)、14.4%(13/90)、5.6%(5/90)(P = 8.035、7.946、8.129、8.014,P<0.05)。(2)镇痛镇静组患者在给药后8、16、24小时的呼吸频率分别为(15.78±0.69)、(16.08±0.59)、(16.21±0.20)次/分钟,心率分别为(87±9)、(83±7)、(76±9)次/分钟,均显著低于对照组的(16.80±0.81)、(17.09±0.50)、(17.02±0.61)次/分钟及(89±8)、(86±7)、(85±6)次/分钟(P = 7.655、7.022、6.536、-6.931、-7.053、-10.196,P<0.01)。两组患者给药前及给药后2、8、16、24小时的SpO₂、收缩压及舒张压比较,差异均无统计学意义(P = 3.417、-2.894、-6.501、-3.719、-4.573、2.336、3.315、0.942、-1.583、1.907、1.147、-0.968、0.931、-1.682、1.076,P>0.05)。(3)两组患者的呼吸抑制、缺氧、心动过缓、尿潴留及低血压发生率相近(χ² = 0.310,P>0.05)。镇痛镇静组患者的高血压、意外拔管及心动过速发生率显著低于对照组(χ² = 16.364、5.143、73.309,P<0.05或P<0.01)。在重度烧伤患者休克期合理应用镇痛镇静药物临床效果良好,并发症发生率低。

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