Suppr超能文献

咪达唑仑与丙泊酚用于门诊支气管镜检查镇静的比较。

Comparison of midazolam with propofol for sedation in outpatient bronchoscopy.

作者信息

Crawford M, Pollock J, Anderson K, Glavin R J, MacIntyre D, Vernon D

机构信息

Department of Anaesthesia, Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow.

出版信息

Br J Anaesth. 1993 Apr;70(4):419-22. doi: 10.1093/bja/70.4.419.

Abstract

We have compared sedation for fibreoptic bronchoscopy provided by incremental doses of midazolam with that provided by a computer-controlled infusion of propofol. These two methods were compared in terms of operator and patient acceptability, anxiolysis, effects on systolic arterial pressure and oxygen saturation. Tests were made also of memory and motor reactions, before and 60 min after the end of the procedure. Acceptability to operators and patients was high in both groups. There were no significant differences between the groups in systemic arterial pressure or anxiolysis. Oxygen saturation decreased in both groups (propofol group median 83% (range 69-95%); midazolam group median 86% (range 77-95%)) (ns). The median recovery time was 5 min (range 5-10 min) in the propofol group and 10 min (range 5-40 min) in the midazolam group (P < 0.01). Memory and motor reaction times 60 min after the end of the procedure did not differ from baseline in the propofol group, but were significantly impaired in the midazolam group.

摘要

我们比较了递增剂量咪达唑仑与计算机控制输注丙泊酚用于纤维支气管镜检查的镇静效果。从操作者和患者的接受度、抗焦虑效果、对收缩压和血氧饱和度的影响等方面对这两种方法进行了比较。在操作结束前和结束后60分钟还测试了记忆和运动反应。两组操作者和患者的接受度都很高。两组在体循环动脉压或抗焦虑方面无显著差异。两组血氧饱和度均下降(丙泊酚组中位数83%(范围69 - 95%);咪达唑仑组中位数86%(范围77 - 95%))(无统计学意义)。丙泊酚组的中位恢复时间为5分钟(范围5 - 10分钟),咪达唑仑组为10分钟(范围5 - 40分钟)(P < 0.01)。操作结束60分钟后,丙泊酚组的记忆和运动反应时间与基线无差异,但咪达唑仑组有显著受损。

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