目的:比较蛛网膜下腔麻醉患者通过静脉给予丙泊酚与右美托咪定中度镇静的临床效果。方法:选取 2017 年 1 月至 2018 年 1 月行蛛网膜下腔麻醉患者 106 例,随机分为观察组和对照组各 53 例,对照组采取丙泊酚中度麻醉,观察组给予右美托咪...目的:比较蛛网膜下腔麻醉患者通过静脉给予丙泊酚与右美托咪定中度镇静的临床效果。方法:选取 2017 年 1 月至 2018 年 1 月行蛛网膜下腔麻醉患者 106 例,随机分为观察组和对照组各 53 例,对照组采取丙泊酚中度麻醉,观察组给予右美托咪定麻醉中度麻醉,对比效果。结果:改良 OAA/S 评分恢复至不低于 4 分所需时间、不良反应发生率、有效麻醉时间均低于对照组 (P<0.05);观察组满意度高于对照组 (P<0.05)。结论:静脉给予右美托咪定实施状膜下腔麻醉中度镇静的效果明显优于丙泊酚,且安全性较高。Abstract:Objective: To compare the clinical effects of intravenous propofol and dexmedetomidine for moderate sedation in patients with subarachnoid anesthesia. Methods: A total of 106 patients who underwent subarachnoid anesthesia from February 2019 to January 2020 were selected and randomly divided into the observation group and the control group with 53 patients in each group. The control group received moderate anesthesia with propofol and the observation group received moderate anesthesia with dexmedetomidine. Results: The time required for the modified OAA/S score to recover to no less than 4 points, the incidence of adverse reactions and effective anesthesia time were all lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). The satisfaction of observation group was higher than that of control group (P<0.05). Conclusion: Intravenous administration of dexmedetomidine for moderate sedation under submembranous anesthesia is significantly better than propofol, and has higher safety.展开更多
文摘目的:比较蛛网膜下腔麻醉患者通过静脉给予丙泊酚与右美托咪定中度镇静的临床效果。方法:选取 2017 年 1 月至 2018 年 1 月行蛛网膜下腔麻醉患者 106 例,随机分为观察组和对照组各 53 例,对照组采取丙泊酚中度麻醉,观察组给予右美托咪定麻醉中度麻醉,对比效果。结果:改良 OAA/S 评分恢复至不低于 4 分所需时间、不良反应发生率、有效麻醉时间均低于对照组 (P<0.05);观察组满意度高于对照组 (P<0.05)。结论:静脉给予右美托咪定实施状膜下腔麻醉中度镇静的效果明显优于丙泊酚,且安全性较高。Abstract:Objective: To compare the clinical effects of intravenous propofol and dexmedetomidine for moderate sedation in patients with subarachnoid anesthesia. Methods: A total of 106 patients who underwent subarachnoid anesthesia from February 2019 to January 2020 were selected and randomly divided into the observation group and the control group with 53 patients in each group. The control group received moderate anesthesia with propofol and the observation group received moderate anesthesia with dexmedetomidine. Results: The time required for the modified OAA/S score to recover to no less than 4 points, the incidence of adverse reactions and effective anesthesia time were all lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). The satisfaction of observation group was higher than that of control group (P<0.05). Conclusion: Intravenous administration of dexmedetomidine for moderate sedation under submembranous anesthesia is significantly better than propofol, and has higher safety.
