Avramov M N, Husain M M, White P F
Department of Anesthesiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA.
Anesth Analg. 1995 Sep;81(3):596-602. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199509000-00031.
The intravenous anesthetics which are commonly used for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) possess dose-dependent anticonvulsant properties. Since the clinical efficacy of ECT depends on the induction of a seizure of adequate duration, it is important to determine the optimal dose of the hypnotic for use during ECT. We compared the duration of seizure activity and cognitive recovery profiles after different doses of methohexital, propofol, and etomidate administered to induce hypnosis prior to ECT. Ten outpatients with major depressive disorders receiving maintenance ECT participated in this prospective, randomized, cross-over study. Patients were premedicated with glycopyrrolate, 0.2 mg intravenously (i.v.), and labetalol, 20-30 mg i.v., and hypnosis was induced with an i.v. bolus injection of methohexital or propofol (0.75, 1.0, and 1.5 mg/kg), or etomidate (0.15, 0.2, and 0.3 mg/kg), administered over 10-15 s. Adequate muscle paralysis was achieved with succinylcholine, 1.0-1.4 mg/kg i.v. Each patient's seizure threshold was determined prior to enrollment in the study and the electrical stimulus variables were kept constant throughout the study period. After delivery of a bilateral electrical stimulus, the duration of the resulting electroencephalographic (EEG) and motor seizures were recorded. A total of 90 ECT treatments were evaluated. The durations of EEG and motor seizures were longest after etomidate and shortest after propofol. There were no significant dose-related differences in motor and EEG seizure durations (means +/- SD) after the low, intermediate, and high doses of etomidate of 44 +/- 11 and 77 +/- 19, 43 +/- 10 and 76 +/- 34, 42 +/- 16 and 78 +/- 56 s, respectively. Conversely, both methohexital and propofol, 0.75, 1.0, and 1.5 mg/kg, produced dose-dependent decreases in motor and EEG seizure durations (i.e., 37 +/- 10 and 58 +/- 12, 36 +/- 8 and 62 +/- 24, and 29 +/- 13 and 48 +/- 20 for methohexital; 34 +/- 15 and 56 +/- 29, 31 +/- 8 and 50 +/- 17, and 20 +/- 6 and 33 +/- 12 for propofol, respectively). The awakening times were similar, regardless of the hypnotic or dose administered.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
常用于电休克治疗(ECT)的静脉麻醉药具有剂量依赖性抗惊厥特性。由于ECT的临床疗效取决于诱发足够持续时间的癫痫发作,因此确定ECT期间使用的催眠药的最佳剂量很重要。我们比较了在ECT前给予不同剂量的美索比妥、丙泊酚和依托咪酯诱导催眠后癫痫发作活动的持续时间和认知恢复情况。10名接受维持性ECT的重度抑郁症门诊患者参与了这项前瞻性、随机、交叉研究。患者静脉注射0.2mg格隆溴铵和20 - 30mg拉贝洛尔进行预处理,然后通过静脉推注美索比妥或丙泊酚(0.75、1.0和1.5mg/kg)或依托咪酯(0.15、0.2和0.3mg/kg)在10 - 15秒内诱导催眠。静脉注射1.0 - 1.4mg/kg琥珀酰胆碱实现充分的肌肉麻痹。在研究入组前确定每位患者的癫痫发作阈值,并在整个研究期间保持电刺激变量不变。给予双侧电刺激后,记录由此产生的脑电图(EEG)和运动性癫痫发作的持续时间。共评估了90次ECT治疗。依托咪酯给药后EEG和运动性癫痫发作的持续时间最长,丙泊酚给药后最短。低、中、高剂量依托咪酯(分别为44±11和77±19、43±10和76±34、42±16和78±56秒)后运动和EEG癫痫发作持续时间无显著剂量相关差异。相反,0.75、1.0和1.5mg/kg的美索比妥和丙泊酚均使运动和EEG癫痫发作持续时间呈剂量依赖性缩短(即美索比妥分别为37±10和58±12、36±8和62±24、29±13和48±20;丙泊酚分别为34±15和56±29、31±8和50±17、20±6和33±12)。无论使用何种催眠药或剂量,苏醒时间相似。(摘要截短于250字)