舒芬太尼与瑞芬太尼复合丙泊酚全凭静脉麻醉用于神经外科手术效果与安全性的系统评价

Efectiveness and Safety of Sufentanil-Propofol versus Remifentanil-Propofol During Total Intravenous Anesthesia for Neurosurgery:A Systematic Review

目的系统评价舒芬太尼与瑞芬太尼复合丙泊酚全凭静脉麻醉用于神经外科手术的临床麻醉效果和安全性。方法计算机检索he Cochrane Library(2013年第3期)、Cochrane协作网麻醉组专业协作组数据库、MEDLINE、EMbase、Ovid、Springer、CBM、CNKI、VIP和WanFang Data,同时手工检索图书馆馆藏期刊,收集舒芬太尼与瑞芬太尼复合丙泊酚全凭静脉麻醉用于神经外科手术的随机对照试验(RCT),检索时限均为从建库至2013年5月。由2位研究者按照纳入与排除标准独立筛选文献、提取资料和评价质量,然后采用RevMan 5.1软件进行Meta分析。结果最终纳入13个RCT,共647例患者。Meta分析结果显示:①血流动力学:瑞芬太尼组在诱导后、插管后5 min MAP下降,与舒芬太尼组相比差异无统计学意义。两组在开颅时和拔管时MAP改变及诱导后、插管后5 min、开颅时和拔管时HR改变差异无统计学意义。②术中唤醒:两组术中唤醒时间、唤醒镇静效果差异无统计学意义。③苏醒时间及拔管时间:与瑞芬太尼组相比,舒芬太尼组苏醒时间及拔管时间更长,其差异有统计学意义。④不良反应:两组患者术后恶心呕吐、呼吸抑制、躁动、寒颤、低血压的发生率差异无统计学意义。⑤术后疼痛:与瑞芬太尼组相比,舒芬太尼组术后1 h、术后2 h VAS更低,术后24 h内需追加其他镇痛药物人数更少,差异有统计学意义。⑥药物用量:两组术中丙泊酚用量差异无统计学意义。结论与瑞芬太尼相比,舒芬太尼复合丙泊酚用于神经外科手术时,其麻醉诱导、气管插管时血流动力学稳定,患者术后苏醒质量高,减少了术后镇痛药物的使用,而两者术后不良反应发生率及丙泊酚用量无明显差异。

Objective To systematically review the clinical effectiveness and safety of sufentanil-propofol versus remifentanil-propofol during total intravenous anesthesia for neurosurgery. Methods Databases including The Cochrane Library （Issue 3, 2013）, the database of the Cochrane Anesthesia Group, MEDLINE, EMbase, PubMed, Ovid, Springer, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were electronically searched from inception to May 2013 for the randomized controlled trials （RCTs） of sufentanil-propofol versus remifentanil-propofol during total intravenous anesthesia for neurosurgery. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. Results Thirteen trials involving 647 patients were finally included. The results of meta-analysis showed that： a） for hemodynamic changes, MAP decreased in the remifentanil-propofol group after induction and decreased 5 minutes after intubation, but no significant difference was found between the two groups; the two groups were alike in MAP changes during craniotomy and extubation, and in HR changes after induction, 5 minutes after intubation, during craniotomy and extubation, with no significant difference. b） The result of intra-operative wake-up test showed that, there was no significant difference in the sedative effect and the time of awaking between the two groups. c） For emergence time and extubation time, compared with the sufentanil-propofol group, emergence time and extubation time were significantly shorter than those in the remifentanil-propofol group. d） For side effects, there was no significant difference in side effects （such as post-operative nausea, vomiting, respiratory depression, restlessness, chills and hypotension） between the two groups. And e） for post-operative pain, compared with the remifentanil-propofol group, post-operative 1-h and 2-h VAS were lower and the number of who need additional analgesic drugs within 24 h after operation was less in the sufentanil-propofol group, with significant differences. Both groups used the similar dosage of propofol with no significant difference. Conclusion Compared with the remifentanil-propofol group, hemodynamics changes in the sufentanil-propofol group is steadier after induction and during intubation. Patients in the sufentanil-propofol group are better in postoperative awakening quality. But they are alike in the incidence of side effects and propofol dosage.