期刊文献+

清醒镇静麻醉用于腹膜透析置管术的有效性及安全性的临床研究 被引量:2

The efficacy and safety of conscious sedation anesthesia in peritoneal dialysis catheterization
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的探讨清醒镇静(conscious sedation,CS)麻醉在腹膜透析(peritoneal dialysis,PD)置管术中的有效性和安全性。方法选取2017年1月~2020年5月在北京大学国际医院使用手术切开法行腹膜透析置管术的患者,根据麻醉方式不同分成2组:传统组(A组):术前30min肌肉注射盐酸哌替啶和盐酸异丙嗪,联合局部浸润麻醉。改良组(B组):手术开始时静脉使用芬太尼(B1)、舒芬太尼(B2)或瑞芬太尼(B3)联合局部浸润麻醉。比较两组患者的临床基线资料,手术过程中血压、心率,术中、术后疼痛以及不良反应。结果共94例患者纳入本研究,其中A组53例,B组41例。2组的人口学资料及相关的化验检查无差异,美国麻醉协会(american society of anesthesiologists,ASA)麻醉风险分级评估为IV级的高危风险患者比例分别占58.5%和68.3%(P=0.330)。B组患者术中疼痛比例明显低于A组患者(17%比39.6%,P=0.018);术后疼痛比例、静息疼痛评分及活动时疼痛评分无显著差异。A组有5例(9.4%)不良反应,其中3例出现了胃肠道反应,1例发生了低血压和1例出现意识障碍,B组有2例(4.8%)的患者出现不良反应均是胃肠道反应,但2组总不良反应发生率无显著差异(P=0.395)。进一步分析,在B1、B2和B3组患者使用不同的药物镇痛效果及不良反应无差异(P>0.05)。结论行腹膜透析置管术的患者存在麻醉高风险,采用清醒镇静麻醉能达到更好的镇痛效果,且安全性好,体现了舒适化医疗的理念。 Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of conscious sedation(CS)in the operation of peritoneal dialysis(PD)catheterization.Methods Patients undergoing catherization for PD by surgical incision treated in Peking University International Hospital during the period from January 2017 to May 2020 were enrolled in this study.Patients were divided into two groups according to the anesthesia method:group A,intramuscular injection of pethidine hydrochloride and promethazine hydrochloride before operation combined with local infiltration anesthesia during operation;group B,one of the three analgesics,fentanyl(subgroup B1),sufentanil(subgroup B2)or remifentanil(subgroup B3)intravenously at the beginning of operation for conscious sedation combined with local infiltration anesthesia.Adverse reactions,clinical findings,and peri-operative blood pressure,heart rate and pain score were compared between the two groups.Results A total of 94 patients,53 cases in group A and 41 cases in group B,were enrolled in this study.There were no differences in demographic data and laboratory examinations between the two groups.The proportion of patients with high anesthesia risk(grade IV)based on the ASA assessment was 58.5%and 68.3%in group A and group B respectively(P=0.330).The proportion of intraoperative pain was lower in group B than in group A(17%vs.39.6%,P=0.018).There were no significant differences in rate of postoperative pain,resting pain score and exercise pain score between the two groups.Five cases in group A(9.4%)had adverse reactions,including gastrointestinal reactions in 3 cases,hypotension in one case,and consciousness disturbance in one case;two cases in group B(4.8%)had gastrointestinal reactions.However,there was no significant difference in the incidence of overall adverse reactions between the two groups(P=0.395).No significant differences in analgesic effects and gastrointestinal reactions were found among the three subgroups in group B(P>0.05).Conclusion Patients undergoing PD catheterization are at high risk of anesthesia.Conscious sedation anesthesia had better analgesic effect and safety,complying with the concept of comfortable medical treatment.
作者 杨清华 丁嘉祥 甘红兵 姚兰 刘鲲鹏 王梅 YANG Qing-hua;DING Jia-xiang;GAN Hong-bing;YAO Lan;LIU Kun-peng;WANG Mei(Department of Nephrology,Peking University International Hospital,Beijing 102206,China;Department of Anesthesiology,Peking University International Hospital,Beijing 102206,China;Department of Nephrology,Peking University People’s Hospital Beijing 100044,China)
出处 《中国血液净化》 CSCD 2021年第3期185-188,共4页 Chinese Journal of Blood Purification
关键词 腹膜透析置管术 清醒镇静 麻醉 Peritoneal dialysis catheterization Conscious sedation Anesthesia
  • 相关文献

参考文献9

二级参考文献64

  • 1熊飞,董骏武,李红波,龚昭,曾志武,陈芳,梁鸿卿.腹腔镜下腹膜透析置管术对术后并发症的影响[J].中华临床医师杂志(电子版),2011,5(6):1724-1727. 被引量:19
  • 2张永谦,岳云,冯春生,曲向东.单纯靶控输注雷米芬太尼对BIS和AEPI的影响[J].国际麻醉学与复苏杂志,2006,27(1):29-32. 被引量:27
  • 3陈崴,姜宗培,郑勋华,陈伟英,郭群英,毛海萍,叶晓青,阳晓,余学清.腹膜透析置管术预防性抗生素用药的前瞻性随机对照临床研究[J].中华肾脏病杂志,2006,22(10):601-604. 被引量:11
  • 4王海燕.肾脏病学.第3版.北京:人民卫生出版社,2009.
  • 5Hans P, Brichant JF, Dewandre PY, et al. Effects of two calculated plasma sufentanil concentrations on the hemodynamic and bispectral index responses to Mayfield head holder application[J]. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol, 1999,11 (2) : 81-85.
  • 6Faigel DO, Baron TH, Goldstein JL, et al. Guidelines for the use of deep sedation and anesthesia for GI endoscopy[J]. Gastrointest Endosc,2002,56(5) :613-617.
  • 7American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Sedation and Analgesia by Non-Anesthesiologists. Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists [J]. Anesthesiology, 2002,96 (4) : 1004-1017.
  • 8Raymondos K, Panning B, Baehem I, et al. Evaluation of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreat ography under conscious sedation and general anesthesia [J]. Endoscopy,2002,34(9):721-726.
  • 9Manolaraki M, Theodoropoulou A, Stroumpos C, et al. Remifentanil compared with midazolam and pethidine sedation during colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized study [J]. Dig Dis Sci,2008,53(1) :34-40.
  • 10Akcaboy ZN, Akeahoy EY, Albayrak D, et al. Can remifentanil be a better choice than propofol for colonoscopy during monitored anesthesia care[J]. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand, 2006,50(6) :736-741.

共引文献189

同被引文献25

引证文献2

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部