Suppr超能文献

在支气管内超声引导下经支气管针吸活检术中,持续输注固定剂量右美托咪定与单次推注固定剂量咪达唑仑作为维持术中镇静的主要镇静药物:一项双盲随机对照试验。

Fixed dexmedetomidine infusion versus fixed-dose midazolam bolus as primary sedative for maintaining intra-procedural sedation during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a double blind randomized controlled trial.

作者信息

Kumari Renu, Jain Kajal, Agarwal Ritesh, Dhooria Sahajal, Sehgal Inderpaul Singh, Aggarwal Ashutosh Nath

机构信息

Pulmonary Medicine Department, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.

Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Department, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.

出版信息

Expert Rev Respir Med. 2021 Dec;15(12):1597-1604. doi: 10.1080/17476348.2021.1918000. Epub 2021 Apr 25.

Abstract

: The utility and safety of fixed dexmedetomidine infusion was compared to fixed-dose midazolam bolus among patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA.: In this randomized double-blind study, 197 patients were assigned to receive dexmedetomidine (Group D, 1 μg/kg before, and 0.6 μg/kg/hour during, procedure) or midazolam (Group M, 2 mg before procedure) sedation. The primary outcome was number of rescue midazolam boluses administered to achieve Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score of two or more. We also studied sedation depth during procedure, adverse hemodynamic and hypoxemic events, bronchoscopist and patient satisfaction, and time-to-discharge from recovery room.: Rescue midazolam requirement was significantly lesser in 99 Group D (0.9 ± 1.2 boluses) than in 98 Group M (2.0 ± 2.4 boluses), subjects. Mean RSS score was significantly higher in Group D subjects (2.5 ± 0.7 vs. 2.3 ± 0.7). Significantly more subjects in Group D developed hypotension (46 vs. 27) or bradycardia (37 vs. 5), but none required specific intervention. Bronchoscopists reported significantly greater overall procedure satisfaction in Group D subjects.: Fixed dexmedetomidine infusion reduced need for rescue sedation during EBUS-TBNA, and allowed slightly faster post-procedure recovery, as compared to fixed-dose midazolam bolus. However, it caused hypotension and bradycardia more frequently.: www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier is NCT02713191.

摘要

在接受超声支气管镜引导下经支气管针吸活检术(EBUS-TBNA)的患者中,比较了固定剂量输注右美托咪定与固定剂量推注咪达唑仑的效用和安全性。

在这项随机双盲研究中,197例患者被分配接受右美托咪定(D组,术前1μg/kg,术中0.6μg/(kg·小时))或咪达唑仑(M组,术前2mg)镇静。主要结局是为达到拉姆齐镇静评分(RSS)为2分或更高而给予的抢救性咪达唑仑推注次数。我们还研究了术中镇静深度、不良血流动力学和低氧事件、支气管镜检查医师和患者的满意度以及从恢复室出院的时间。

99例D组患者的抢救性咪达唑仑需求量(0.9±1.2次推注)显著低于98例M组患者(2.0±2.4次推注)。D组患者的平均RSS评分显著更高(2.5±0.7 vs. 2.3±0.7)。D组中出现低血压(46例 vs. 27例)或心动过缓(37例 vs. 5例)的患者明显更多,但均无需特殊干预。支气管镜检查医师报告D组患者的总体手术满意度明显更高。

与固定剂量推注咪达唑仑相比,固定剂量输注右美托咪定减少了EBUS-TBNA期间对抢救性镇静的需求,并使术后恢复稍快。然而,它更频繁地引起低血压和心动过缓。

临床试验.gov标识符为NCT02713191。

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