Manninen P H, Chan A S, Papworth D
Department of Anaesthesia, Toronto Hospital, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Can J Anaesth. 1997 Jan;44(1):26-30. doi: 10.1007/BF03014320.
The aim of this study was to compare two conscious sedation techniques, midazolam (M) and propofol (P), for interventional neuroradiology by assessment of the incidence of complications and satisfaction scores.
Forty patients were randomized to receive 0.75 micrograms.kg-1 fentanyl and a M or P bolus followed by an infusion (M 15 micrograms.kg-1 + 0.5 micrograms.kg-1.min-1; P 0.5 mg.kg-1 + 25 micrograms.kg-1 min-1). The incidences of complications and untoward events requiring intervention were documented. These included respiratory depression, excessive pain, inappropriate movements and the inability to examine the patient. The satisfaction of the anaesthetic technique from the perspective of both the neuroradiologist and the patient was scored.
The incidence and types of complications were no different between the two groups. Pain occurred in 12 patients (6M, 6P), inappropriate movements in 17 (7M, 10P) and respiratory changes in 10 patients (2M, 8P).
Both techniques were satisfactory and the incidence of complications was similar for both groups.
本研究旨在通过评估并发症发生率和满意度评分，比较咪达唑仑（M）和丙泊酚（P）两种清醒镇静技术在介入神经放射学中的应用。
40例患者随机接受0.75微克/千克芬太尼及M或P单次推注，随后持续输注（M：15微克/千克 + 0.5微克/千克·分钟；P：0.5毫克/千克 + 25微克/千克·分钟）。记录需要干预的并发症和不良事件的发生率。这些包括呼吸抑制、过度疼痛、不适当的动作及无法检查患者。从神经放射科医生和患者的角度对麻醉技术的满意度进行评分。
两组之间并发症的发生率和类型无差异。12例患者出现疼痛（6例M组，6例P组），17例出现不适当动作（7例M组，10例P组），10例出现呼吸变化（2例M组，8例P组）。
两种技术均令人满意，两组并发症发生率相似。
