Suppr超能文献

丙泊酚与咪达唑仑用于肝硬化患者上消化道内镜检查的清醒镇静:一项对比研究。

Conscious sedation using propofol midazolam in cirrhotic patients during upper GI endoscopy: A comparative study.

作者信息

Wahab Essam A, Hamed Emad F, Ahmad Hanan S, Abdel Monem Sameh M, Fathy Talaat

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine.

Department of Clinical Pathology.

出版信息

JGH Open. 2018 Oct 23;3(1):25-31. doi: 10.1002/jgh3.12098. eCollection 2019 Feb.

Abstract

AIM

We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of propofol midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing upper GI endoscopy.

METHODS

Ninety compensated cirrhotic patients (all met class I-III criteria according to the American Society of Anesthesia) were enrolled in this comparative study. They were classified into three groups according to scheduled pre-endoscopy sedation drugs; the midazolam group, which included 30 patients who received IV weight-dependent midazolam (0.05 mg/kg with additional doses of 1 mg every 2 min when necessary, up to a maximum dose of 0.1 mg/kg or 10 mg); the propofol group, which included 30 patients who received a propofol bolus dose according to age and weight (0.25 mg/kg with additional doses of 20-30 mg every 30-60 s when necessary, up to a maximum dose of 400 mg); and the combined group, which included 30 patients who received half a dose of midazolam and of propofol.

RESULTS

Prolonged postendoscopy recovery times were reported in the midazolam group, while shorter recovery times were reported in the propofol and combined groups. All patients in the propofol and combined groups gained consciousness shortly postendoscopy; however, only half of the midazolam group's patients gained consciousness after the standard recovery time (10-30 min). Highly significant differences were found among the three groups regarding consciousness level according to the Glasgow coma scale, as well as regarding the occurrence of hypoxia during endoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Considering safety and efficacy issues, propofol is better than midazolam in gastrointestinal endoscopy, especially in patients with liver cirrhosis.

摘要

目的

我们旨在评估丙泊酚联合咪达唑仑在上消化道内镜检查的肝硬化患者中的安全性和有效性。

方法

90例代偿期肝硬化患者(均符合美国麻醉医师协会I-III级标准)纳入本对比研究。根据预定的内镜检查前镇静药物将他们分为三组;咪达唑仑组,包括30例接受静脉注射依体重而定的咪达唑仑的患者(0.05mg/kg,必要时每2分钟额外给予1mg,最大剂量为0.1mg/kg或10mg);丙泊酚组,包括30例根据年龄和体重接受丙泊酚推注剂量的患者(0.25mg/kg,必要时每30-60秒额外给予20-30mg,最大剂量为400mg);联合组,包括30例接受半剂量咪达唑仑和丙泊酚的患者。

结果

咪达唑仑组报告内镜检查后恢复时间延长,而丙泊酚组和联合组报告恢复时间较短。丙泊酚组和联合组的所有患者在内镜检查后不久即恢复意识;然而,咪达唑仑组只有一半的患者在标准恢复时间(10-30分钟)后恢复意识。根据格拉斯哥昏迷量表,三组在意识水平以及内镜检查期间缺氧的发生方面存在高度显著差异。

结论

考虑到安全性和有效性问题,丙泊酚在胃肠内镜检查中优于咪达唑仑,尤其是在肝硬化患者中。

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