Bennett J, Shafer D M, Efaw D, Goupil M
Department of OMFS, University of Connecticut, School of Dental Medicine, Farmington 06030, USA.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998 Sep;56(9):1049-53; discussion 1053-4. doi: 10.1016/s0278-2391(98)90253-1.
This article compared the use of the traditional incremental bolus technique with the continuous infusion technique for the administration of propofol for deep sedation/general anesthesia.
Patients were sedated with midazolam and fentanyl and then had maintenance of an anesthetic state achieved with propofol administered by either of the two techniques. Data were collected to evaluate the overall surgical/anesthetic procedure, movement of the patient, and his or her hemodynamic status.
Both groups received a mean maintenance dose of propofol exceeding 6 mg/kg/hr. However, the patients in the continuous infusion group received a statistically greater maintenance dose (continuous infusion + supplemental vs incremental bolus). All patients were maintained in a deep sedation/general anesthetic state. Respiratory and blood pressure values were comparable in both groups. However, the continuous infusion group showed improved hemodynamic stability manifested as fewer fluctuations in heart rate. Visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaires completed by the surgeon and surgical assistant reported less patient movement and improved surgical/anesthetic conditions with the continuous infusion technique. Recovery of the two groups was comparable.
This study, although finding advantages in the continuous infusion technique, showed satisfactory conditions associated with both techniques.
本文比较了传统递增推注技术与持续输注技术在丙泊酚用于深度镇静/全身麻醉时的应用情况。
患者先使用咪达唑仑和芬太尼进行镇静,然后通过两种技术中的任意一种给予丙泊酚来维持麻醉状态。收集数据以评估整个手术/麻醉过程、患者的活动情况及其血流动力学状态。
两组患者丙泊酚的平均维持剂量均超过6mg/kg/小时。然而,持续输注组患者接受的维持剂量在统计学上更高(持续输注+补充剂量与递增推注相比)。所有患者均维持在深度镇静/全身麻醉状态。两组的呼吸和血压值相当。然而,持续输注组的血流动力学稳定性有所改善,表现为心率波动较少。外科医生和手术助手完成的视觉模拟量表(VAS)问卷显示,持续输注技术使患者活动减少,手术/麻醉条件得到改善。两组的恢复情况相当。
本研究虽然发现持续输注技术具有优势,但两种技术的相关情况均令人满意。