Department of Anaesthesiology, University of Hong Kong Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Department of Anaesthesiology, University of Hong Kong, China.
Anaesthesia. 2018 Dec;73(12):1507-1514. doi: 10.1111/anae.14355. Epub 2018 Jun 29.
Induction of anaesthesia with target-controlled infusion of propofol may be achieved by stepwise increases in effect-site concentration until the patient loses consciousness (titration method), or by setting a high effect-site concentration target and observing the calculated effect-site concentration at loss of consciousness (standard method). When the estimated effect-site concentration at loss of consciousness is accurate, the difference between effect-site concentration at loss of consciousness and at recovery of consciousness should be small. This prospective, randomised, controlled trial was designed to compare this difference (effect-site concentration at loss of consciousness - effect-site concentration at recovery of consciousness) associated with the two techniques. Sixty-seven healthy patients undergoing elective hemithyroidectomy were recruited. Induction of anaesthesia was achieved using effect-site target-controlled infusion with the modified Marsh model and k of 1.2 min . The median (IQR [range]) difference between effect-site concentration at loss of consciousness and recovery of consciousness was significantly lower in patients in the titration group at 1.2 (0.8-1.5 [0.1-2.9]) μg.ml compared with the standard group 2.1 (1.9-2.6 [0.2-3.6] μg.ml ; p < 0.0001). There was a positive correlation between effect-site concentration at loss of, and recovery of, consciousness (R = 0.41, p = 0.016) in the titration group, which was not seen in the standard group (R = -0.15, p = 0.44). In conclusion, using the modified Marsh pharmacokinetic model, the titration method for target-controlled infusion propofol at induction of anaesthesia allows closer matching of propofol concentration to depth of anaesthesia than the standard method.
异丙酚靶控输注诱导麻醉时,可以通过逐步增加效应部位浓度直到患者失去意识(滴定法),或者通过设置高效应部位浓度目标并观察意识丧失时的计算效应部位浓度(标准法)来实现。当意识丧失时的估计效应部位浓度准确时,意识丧失时的效应部位浓度与意识恢复时的效应部位浓度之间的差异应该很小。本前瞻性、随机、对照试验旨在比较这两种技术相关的差异(意识丧失时的效应部位浓度 - 意识恢复时的效应部位浓度)。招募了 67 名接受择期甲状腺半切除术的健康患者。采用改良 Marsh 模型和 k 为 1.2 min 的效应部位靶控输注来诱导麻醉。在滴定组中,意识丧失时和恢复时的效应部位浓度之间的中位数(IQR [范围])差异明显低于标准组 1.2(0.8-1.5 [0.1-2.9]μg.ml)与 2.1(1.9-2.6 [0.2-3.6]μg.ml;p < 0.0001)。在滴定组中,意识丧失时和恢复时的效应部位浓度之间存在正相关(R = 0.41,p = 0.016),而在标准组中则没有(R = -0.15,p = 0.44)。总之,在诱导麻醉时使用改良 Marsh 药代动力学模型,与标准方法相比,靶控输注异丙酚的滴定法可以更紧密地将异丙酚浓度与麻醉深度相匹配。