Suppr超能文献

比较在脊髓麻醉中使用右美托咪定和瑞马唑仑镇静的效果:一项双盲随机对照试验。

Comparison emergence of sedation, using dexmedetomidine and remimazolam, in spinal anaesthesia - double blinded randomized controlled trial.

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology and Pain medicine, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Department of Infection and Immunology, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

Int J Med Sci. 2024 Jun 3;21(8):1552-1558. doi: 10.7150/ijms.95736. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

Continuous intravenous infusion of remimazolam may be suitable for sedation in patients undergoing regional anaesthesia. However, there have been no studies comparing remimazolam and dexmedetomidine for this purpose. This study compared emergence from sedation between dexmedetomidine and remimazolam following continuous intravenous infusion in patients undergoing spinal anaesthesia. This double-blinded, randomised controlled trial assessed the sedative effects of dexmedetomidine and remimazolam. Following spinal anaesthesia, patients were sedated using continuous intravenous infusion of either dexmedetomidine (D group) or remimazolam (R group).The D group received dexmedetomidine administered at 6 mL/kg/h (6 µg/kg/h) for 10 minutes, followed by 1 mL/kg/h (1 µg/kg/h). The R group received remimazolam administered at 6 mL/kg/h (6 mg/kg/h) for 10 minutes, followed by 1 mL/kg/h (1 mg/kg/h). Sedation levels were evaluated using the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale. The time to reach MOAA/S ≤ 3 from the start of drug infusion and the time to reach MOAA/S = 5 from the end of infusion were recorded. Hemodynamic parameters and respiratory rate were also monitored. The R group reached MOAA/S ≤ 3 significantly faster than the D group during induction of sedation (4 ± 1 minutes and 11 ± 3 minutes, respectively, < 0.001). The R group also reached MOAA/S = 5 significantly faster than the D group during emergence from sedation (11 ± 3 minutes and 16 ± 5 minutes, respectively, < 0.001). Both groups maintained stable hemodynamic parameters and respiratory rate without any significant differences, although the mean heart rate was significantly lower in the D group than in the R group after the start of infusion. Remimazolam demonstrated significantly faster induction of and emergence from sedation compared to dexmedetomidine, with no significant differences in haemodynamics or respiratory depression.

摘要

持续静脉输注瑞马唑仑可能适用于接受区域麻醉的患者镇静。然而,目前尚无研究比较瑞马唑仑和右美托咪定在这方面的作用。本研究比较了椎管内麻醉患者持续静脉输注右美托咪定和瑞马唑仑镇静后苏醒的情况。 这项双盲、随机对照试验评估了右美托咪定和瑞马唑仑的镇静作用。椎管内麻醉后,患者接受持续静脉输注右美托咪定(D 组)或瑞马唑仑(R 组)镇静。D 组先以 6mL/kg/h(6μg/kg/h)输注 10 分钟,然后以 1mL/kg/h(1μg/kg/h)输注。R 组先以 6mL/kg/h(6mg/kg/h)输注 10 分钟,然后以 1mL/kg/h(1mg/kg/h)输注。使用改良警觉/镇静评分(MOAA/S)评估镇静水平。记录从开始输注药物到 MOAA/S≤3 的时间和从输注结束到 MOAA/S=5 的时间。还监测了血流动力学参数和呼吸频率。 在诱导镇静时,R 组达到 MOAA/S≤3 的时间明显快于 D 组(分别为 4±1 分钟和 11±3 分钟, < 0.001)。在苏醒时,R 组达到 MOAA/S=5 的时间也明显快于 D 组(分别为 11±3 分钟和 16±5 分钟, < 0.001)。两组患者的血流动力学参数和呼吸频率均保持稳定,无显著差异,尽管在开始输注后,D 组的平均心率明显低于 R 组。 与右美托咪定相比,瑞马唑仑镇静的诱导和苏醒速度明显更快,在血流动力学或呼吸抑制方面无显著差异。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bd36/11186422/7f0ca641619c/ijmsv21p1552g001.jpg

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