首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >The efficacy of dexmedetomidine-remifentanil versus dexmedetomidine-propofol in children undergoing flexible bronchoscopy
【2h】

The efficacy of dexmedetomidine-remifentanil versus dexmedetomidine-propofol in children undergoing flexible bronchoscopy

机译:右美托咪定-瑞芬太尼与右美托咪定-异丙酚在接受柔性支气管镜检查的儿童中的疗效

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Flexible bronchoscopy has been more and more used for diagnosis and management diseases of respiratory system in pediatrics. Previous studies have reported that remifentanil (RF) and propofol are safe and effective for flexible bronchoscopy in adults, however, there have no trials evaluate the efficacy of DEX-RF versus dexmedetomidine-propofol in children undergoing flexible bronchoscopy.We divided 123 children undergoing flexible bronchoscopy with DEX-RF or dexmedetomidine-propofol into 2 groups: Group DR (n = 63, DEX infusion at 1.0 μg kg−1 for 10 minutes, then adjusted to 0.5–0.7 μg kg−1 h−1; RF infusion at 1.0 μg kg−1 for 5 minutes, then adjusted to 0.05–0.2 μg kg−1 min−1), Group DP (n = 60, DEX infusion at 1.0 μg kg−1 for 10 minutes, then adjusted to 0.5–0.7 μg kg−1 h−1; propofol infusion at 10 μg kg−1 for 5 minutes, then adjusted to 0.05–0.1 μg kg−1 min−1). Ramsay sedation scale of the 2 groups was maintained at 3. Anesthesia onset time; total number of intraoperative patient movements; hemodynamics; total cumulative dose of DEX; amount of and time to first-dose rescue midazolam and lidocaine; postoperative recovery time; adverse events; and bronchoscopist satisfaction score were recorded.Anesthesia onset time was significantly shorter in DP (8.22 ± 2.48 vs 12.25 ± 6.43 minutes, respectively, for DP, DR, P = 0.015). The perioperative hemodynamic profile was more stable in DR than DP group. More children moved during flexible bronchoscopy in DP group (P = 0.009). Total dose of rescue midazolam and lidocaine was significantly higher in DR than in DP (P < 0.001). Similarly, the time to first dose of rescue midazolam and lidocaine was significantly longer in DP than in DR (P < 0.001). Total cumulative dose of DEX was more in DR than DP group (P < 0.001). The time to recovery for discharge from the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) was significantly shorter in DP than in DR group (P < 0.001). The bronchoscopist-satisfaction scores were higher for DR than DP (P = 0.036). There were significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of the overall incidence of hypertension, tachycardia, and hypoxemia (P < 0.05).Although underwent longer recovery time and more incidence of rescue scheme, DEX-RF resulted in more stable hemodynamic profiles and bronchoscopist-satisfaction scores, lesser patient movements, and can hence be more effectively used in children undergoing flexible bronchoscopy than dexmedetomidine-propofol.
机译:柔性支气管镜已越来越多地用于儿科呼吸系统疾病的诊断和管理。以前的研究报道瑞芬太尼(RF)和丙泊酚对成人柔性支气管镜检查是安全有效的,但是,尚无任何试验评估DEX-RF与右美托咪定-丙泊酚对柔性支气管镜检查儿童的疗效。我们将123名儿童接受了柔性支气管镜检查支气管镜检查,将DEX-RF或右美托咪定-丙泊酚分为2组:DR组(n = 63,以1.0μgkg -1 输注DEX 10分钟,然后调节至0.5–0.7μgkg -1 h -1 ;以1.0μgkg -1 输注RF 5分钟,然后调整为0.05–0.2μgkg -1 < / sup> min -1 ),DP组(n = 60,以1.0μgkg -1 的DEX输注10分钟,然后调整为0.5–0.7μgkg < sup> -1 h -1 ;以10μgkg -1 输注丙泊酚5分钟,然后调整为0.05–0.1μg kg - 1 min -1 )。两组的Ramsay镇静等级维持在3级。术中患者运动总数;血液动力学DEX的总累积剂量;首次剂量的咪达唑仑和利多卡因抢救的时间和量;术后恢复时间;不良事件; DP的麻醉起效时间显着缩短(DP,DR,P = 0.015分别为8.22±2.48分钟和12.25±6.43分钟)。 DR组的围手术期血流动力学特征较DP组稳定。 DP组在柔性支气管镜检查期间有更多的儿童活动(P = 0.009)。 DR中救援性咪达唑仑和利多卡因的总剂量显着高于DP(P <0.001)。同样,DP中首次服用救援用咪达唑仑和利多卡因的时间明显长于DR(P <0.001)。 DR组DEX总累积剂量高于DP组(P <0.001)。 DP组患者从麻醉后护理单位(PACU)恢复出院的时间明显短于DR组(P <0.001)。 DR的支气管医师满意度得分高于DP(P = 0.036)。两组之间在高血压,心动过速和低氧血症的总发生率方面存在显着差异(P <0.05)。尽管经历了更长的恢复时间和更多的抢救方案,但DEX-RF导致血液动力学特征和支气管镜师更稳定-满意度得分,较少的患者运动,因此与右美托咪定-丙泊酚相比,在进行柔性支气管镜检查的儿童中可以更有效地使用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号