Sarasin D S, Ghoneim M M, Block R I
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Iowa, Iowa City 52242, USA.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996 Oct;54(10):1187-93. doi: 10.1016/s0278-2391(96)90348-1.
The study compared the effects of midazolam and propofol on explicit and implicit memory, cognition, and psychomotor function in patients undergoing oral surgical procedures with local anesthesia and conscious sedation.
Twenty-eight patients were tested in a randomized, double-blind study. Patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups. One group received a bolus dose of midazolam, 0.1 mg/kg, followed by a continuous infusion of saline. The other group received a bolus dose of propofol, 1.0 mg/ kg, followed by a continuous infusion of propofol, 65 micrograms/kg/min. Subjective rating questionnaires and tapping, memory, and Digit Symbol Substitution tests were administered. Testing was done at baseline, 10 minutes after the drugs were given, 10 minutes after surgery ended and 10 minutes later.
The midazolam and propofol groups did not differ significantly on any demographic variables. Both drugs produced mental and physical sedation, which did not become substantially attenuated during the time studied. Both tranquilization and attitudes or other feelings showed smaller drug effects than mental and physical sedation. Tapping was decreased by both drugs 10 minutes after treatment, but not postsurgery. Performance on the Digit Symbol Substitution test was below baseline levels for both drugs at 10 minutes after treatment, but only for midazolam in the postsurgery assessment; at 10 minutes after treatment, propofol was associated with poorer performance than midazolam. Immediate and delayed explicit recall were impaired by both drugs 10 minutes after treatment. Immediate and delayed recall were lower for midazolam than propofol postsurgery, but only the difference on immediate recall was significant. Implicit memory was spared by both drugs.
Midazolam and propofol generally produced equivalent impairments, but the duration of the effects of propofol was shorter. Unlike explicit memory, implicit memory resisted impairment.
本研究比较了咪达唑仑和丙泊酚对接受局部麻醉和清醒镇静的口腔外科手术患者的外显记忆、内隐记忆、认知及精神运动功能的影响。
28例患者参与了一项随机双盲研究。患者被随机分为两组。一组静脉推注咪达唑仑0.1mg/kg,随后持续输注生理盐水。另一组静脉推注丙泊酚1.0mg/kg,随后持续输注丙泊酚65μg/kg/min。采用主观评分问卷以及敲击、记忆和数字符号替换测试。测试分别在基线、给药后10分钟、手术结束后10分钟及10分钟后进行。
咪达唑仑组和丙泊酚组在任何人口统计学变量上均无显著差异。两种药物均产生了精神和身体镇静作用,且在所研究的时间段内并未显著减弱。与精神和身体镇静相比,两种药物在使患者平静及态度或其他感受方面的作用较小。治疗后10分钟两种药物均使敲击次数减少,但术后未出现这种情况。治疗后10分钟,两种药物在数字符号替换测试中的表现均低于基线水平,但仅在术后评估中咪达唑仑出现这种情况;治疗后10分钟,丙泊酚组的表现比咪达唑仑组差。治疗后10分钟,两种药物均损害了即时和延迟外显记忆。术后咪达唑仑的即时和延迟记忆低于丙泊酚,但仅即时记忆的差异具有统计学意义。两种药物对内隐记忆均无损害。
咪达唑仑和丙泊酚通常产生同等程度的损害,但丙泊酚的作用持续时间较短。与外显记忆不同,内隐记忆不易受到损害。