Suppr超能文献

腹 部 手 术 中 应 用 双 频 指 数 对 丙 泊 酚 闭 环 与 开 环 靶 控 输 注 的 麻 醉 效 果 比 较

Comparison of anesthesia effects between closedloop and openloop target controlled infusion of propofol using the bispectral index in abdominal surgery.

作者信息

Yang Ning, Yang Ming, Peng Wenping, Zhao Siwen, Bao Jie, Zuo Mingzhang

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, Beijing Hospital; National Center of Gerontology; Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China.

出版信息

Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2020 Dec 28;45(12):1419-1424. doi: 10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2020.190489.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Bispectral index (BIS) can reflect the depth of propofol sedation. This study aims to compare the anesthetic satisfaction, anesthetic dose, and hemodynamic changes between closed-loop target controlled infusion (CLTCI) and open-loop target controlled infusion (OLTCI) during abdominal surgery.

METHODS

From December 2016 to December 2018, 70 patients undergoing abdominal surgery under general anesthesia were selected in Beijing Hospital, including 51 males and 19 females, at the age from 49 to 65 years old. They were classified as grade I-II by the American Society of anesthesiologists (ASA) and were randomly divided into the CLTCI group and the OLTCI group (=35). The CLTCI group received propofol CLTCI, and the target BIS value was set between 45 to 55; in the OLTCI group, the plasma target concentration was adjusted to maintain the BIS value between 40 to 60. Both groups were given remifentanil by target controlled infusion, and the plasma target concentration was 6.0 ng/mL. The percentages of adequate anesthesia time, deep anesthesia time, and light anesthesia time were calculated. The total induction dose of propofol, continuous infusion dose of propofol, predicted target propofol concentration of effect chamber, and continuous infusion dose of remifentanil were calculated. The times of automatic adjustment of propofol concentration in closed-loop system and manual adjustment of propofol concentration in the OLTCI group were recorded. Hemodynamic indexes were recorded, and the percentage of target mean arterial pressure (MAP) maintenance time and target heart rate (HR) maintenance time were calculated. Anesthesia time, operation time, recovery time, and extubation time were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

In the induction stage, the percentage of adequate anesthesia time in the CLTCI group was higher than that in the OLTCI group, and the percentage of deep anesthesia time in the CLTCI group was significantly lower than that in the OLTCI group (both <0.05). In the maintenance stage, the percentage of light anesthesia time in the CLTCI group was significantly lower than that in the OLTCI group (<0.05). The times of propofol adjustment in the CLTCI group was significantly more than that in the OLTCI group (<0.001). The total induction dose of propofol in the CLTCI group was less than that in the OLTCI group (<0.05), but there were no significant differences in the continuous infusion dose of propofol, predicted target concentration of propofol, continuous infusion dose of remifentanil between the 2 groups (all >0.05). There were no significant differences in the percentages of target MAP maintenance time and target HR maintenance time between the 2 groups (both >0.05). There was no intraoperative awareness in both groups, and there were no significant differences in operation time and anesthesia time between the 2 groups (both >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with propofol OLTCI, anesthesia with propofol CLTCI under BIS guidance can maintain a more appropriate depth of anesthesia sedation and more stable hemodynamics.

摘要

目的

脑电双频指数(BIS)可反映丙泊酚镇静深度。本研究旨在比较腹部手术期间闭环靶控输注(CLTCI)与开环靶控输注(OLTCI)的麻醉满意度、麻醉剂量及血流动力学变化。

方法

2016年12月至2018年12月,在北京医院选取70例行全身麻醉下腹部手术的患者,其中男性51例,女性19例,年龄49至65岁。美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)分级为Ⅰ-Ⅱ级,随机分为CLTCI组和OLTCI组(每组35例)。CLTCI组采用丙泊酚CLTCI,目标BIS值设定为45至55;OLTCI组调整血浆靶浓度以维持BIS值在40至60。两组均采用靶控输注瑞芬太尼,血浆靶浓度为6.0 ng/mL。计算麻醉适宜时间、深度麻醉时间及浅麻醉时间的百分比。计算丙泊酚的总诱导剂量、丙泊酚持续输注剂量、效应室预测靶丙泊酚浓度及瑞芬太尼持续输注剂量。记录CLTCI组丙泊酚浓度自动调整次数及OLTCI组丙泊酚浓度手动调整次数。记录血流动力学指标,计算目标平均动脉压(MAP)维持时间百分比及目标心率(HR)维持时间百分比。比较两组的麻醉时间、手术时间、恢复时间及拔管时间。

结果

诱导期,CLTCI组麻醉适宜时间百分比高于OLTCI组,CLTCI组深度麻醉时间百分比显著低于OLTCI组(均P<0.05)。维持期,CLTCI组浅麻醉时间百分比显著低于OLTCI组(P<0.05)。CLTCI组丙泊酚调整次数显著多于OLTCI组(P<0.001)。CLTCI组丙泊酚总诱导剂量低于OLTCI组(P<0.05),但两组丙泊酚持续输注剂量、丙泊酚预测靶浓度、瑞芬太尼持续输注剂量比较差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。两组目标MAP维持时间百分比及目标HR维持时间百分比比较差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。两组均无术中知晓,两组手术时间及麻醉时间比较差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。

结论

与丙泊酚OLTCI相比,在BIS引导下丙泊酚CLTCI麻醉可维持更适宜的麻醉镇静深度及更稳定的血流动力学。

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