Harries A, Bagley G, Lim M
Department of Anaesthesia, St Thomas' Hospital, London.
Anaesthesia. 1988 Mar;43 Suppl:100-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1988.tb09087.x.
A continuous infusion of propofol 2.0-2.5 mg/kg for induction followed by 9 mg/kg/hour for the first 30 minutes and 6 mg/kg/hour thereafter, was compared with methohexitone 1.5 mg/kg for induction followed by 4.8 mg/kg/hour thereafter for maintenance of anaesthesia in a randomised study of 40 patients who underwent extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy using high frequency jet ventilation (HFJV). Systolic blood pressure was significantly lower in the propofol group after induction of anaesthesia, tracheal intubation, placement in the semirecumbent position in the hoist, bath immersion and after 5, 10 and 30 minutes of treatment. Diastolic blood pressure was significantly lower in the propofol group after intubation, placement in the hoist, bath immersion and after 5, 10 and 15 minutes of treatment. Heart rate was significantly lower in the propofol group after induction, intubation, placement in the hoist and bath immersion. There was no significant difference in the quality of induction between the two groups. Quality of maintenance of anaesthesia was judged to be poor in six out of 20 patients who received methohexitone compared with one out of 20 who received propofol but this difference did not reach statistical significance. There was no significant difference between the recovery times for the two groups but six out of 20 patients who received methohexitone were judged to have a poor recovery from anaesthesia compared with none in the propofol group (p less than 0.05). Propofol was associated with excellent induction, maintenance and recovery characteristics but it had a propensity to produce greater decreases in blood pressure, which were most marked when the patient was placed in the semirecumbent position in the hoist.
在一项针对40例行体外冲击波碎石术并采用高频喷射通气(HFJV)的患者的随机研究中,比较了丙泊酚诱导剂量为2.0 - 2.5mg/kg持续输注,随后前30分钟为9mg/(kg·小时),之后为6mg/(kg·小时),与美索比妥诱导剂量为1.5mg/kg,随后维持麻醉剂量为4.8mg/(kg·小时)的效果。丙泊酚组在麻醉诱导、气管插管、在吊升装置中置于半卧位、浴浸以及治疗5、10和30分钟后,收缩压显著较低。丙泊酚组在插管、置于吊升装置中、浴浸以及治疗5、10和15分钟后,舒张压显著较低。丙泊酚组在诱导、插管、置于吊升装置中和浴浸后心率显著较低。两组诱导质量无显著差异。接受美索比妥的20例患者中有6例麻醉维持质量被判定为差,而接受丙泊酚的20例患者中有1例,但这种差异未达到统计学意义。两组恢复时间无显著差异,但接受美索比妥的20例患者中有6例被判定麻醉恢复不佳,而丙泊酚组无此情况(p小于0.05)。丙泊酚具有良好的诱导、维持和恢复特性,但有导致血压下降幅度更大的倾向,当患者在吊升装置中置于半卧位时最为明显。