Wagner H J, Nowacki J, Klose K J
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital, Philipps University, Marburg, Germany.
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1996 Sep-Oct;7(5):673-80. doi: 10.1016/s1051-0443(96)70827-8.
To prospectively and randomly compare use of propofol versus midazolam for sedation during percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA).
Forty patients (27 men, 13 women; mean age 64.4 years +/- 12.2) who underwent PTA of the arteries below the diaphragm were prospectively randomized for sedation with propofol or midazolam. Both drugs were administered after an initial bolus injection by means of continuous infusion to achieve conscious sedation at levels II-III according to the Ramsay classification. Patients and interventionalists were blinded to the applied sedative. Both groups were similar with regard to American Society of Anesthesiology status, heart rate, blood pressure, arterial oxygen pressure (pO2), arterial carbon dioxide pressure (pCO2), arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2), and visual analogue scores for general condition, anxiety, and pain. During PTA, heart rate, blood pressure, and pulse oximetry (tpO2) were monitored continually. Every 30 minutes, an arterial blood gas analysis was performed. Visual analogue scores were obtained before, during, and after intervention.
Decreases in SpO2, pO2, and tpO2 were significantly greater after sedation with midazolam (P < .05; t test). The increase in pCO2 was significantly greater after midazolam (P < .05; t test). No significant difference between the drugs was found with regard to any of the other parameters. Both drugs resulted in sufficient sedation and anxiolysis (P < .01 for both drugs for visual analogue score for anxiety before and during PTA; matched pairs test). Satisfaction of the interventionalist was significantly greater for propofol (P < .05; t test).
Propofol causes less respiratory depression than midazolam for equivalent sedation and anxiolysis in patients undergoing PTA.
前瞻性随机比较异丙酚与咪达唑仑在经皮腔内血管成形术(PTA)期间用于镇静的效果。
40例接受膈下动脉PTA的患者(27例男性,13例女性;平均年龄64.4岁±12.2)被前瞻性随机分为接受异丙酚或咪达唑仑镇静。两种药物均在初始推注后通过持续输注给药,以根据拉姆齐分类达到II - III级的清醒镇静。患者和介入医生对所用镇静剂不知情。两组在麻醉医师协会状态、心率、血压、动脉血氧分压(pO2)、动脉血二氧化碳分压(pCO2)、动脉血氧饱和度(SpO2)以及一般状况、焦虑和疼痛的视觉模拟评分方面相似。在PTA期间,持续监测心率、血压和脉搏血氧饱和度(tpO2)。每30分钟进行一次动脉血气分析。在干预前、干预期间和干预后获取视觉模拟评分。
咪达唑仑镇静后SpO2、pO2和tpO2的下降明显更大(P < 0.05;t检验)。咪达唑仑后pCO2的升高明显更大(P < 0.05;t检验)。在其他任何参数方面,两种药物之间均未发现显著差异。两种药物均产生了足够的镇静和抗焦虑作用(两种药物在PTA前和期间焦虑的视觉模拟评分均P < 0.01;配对检验)。介入医生对异丙酚的满意度明显更高(P < 0.05;t检验)。
在接受PTA的患者中,对于等效的镇静和抗焦虑作用,异丙酚引起的呼吸抑制比咪达唑仑少。