国际麻醉学与复苏杂志   2017, Issue (7): 7-7
    
脑电双频指数指导无痛胃镜检查中瑞芬太尼最适剂量的选择
肖兴鹏, 贾一帆1()
1.武汉大学人民医院
The selection of optimal dosage of remifentanil under the guidance of bispectral index in painless gastroscopy
 全文:
摘要:

目的 探讨在无痛胃镜检查中瑞芬太尼复合丙泊酚静脉麻醉时瑞芬太尼的最适剂量。 方法 接受无痛胃镜检查患者300例,按照随机数字表法随机双盲分成3组(每组100例):瑞芬太尼1组(R1组,瑞芬太尼0.25 μg/kg)、瑞芬太尼2组(R2组,瑞芬太尼0.5 μg/kg)、瑞芬太尼3组(R3组,瑞芬太尼1.0 μg/kg)。记录各组麻醉前(T0)、置入胃镜时(T1)、退出胃镜时(T2)的BIS值、MAP、HR、SpO2,并记录各组患者丙泊酚用量、术中辅助呼吸和术中体动例数、胃镜检查时间、苏醒时间、术中知晓及术后恶心呕吐的情况、离院时间、离院时眩晕等。 结果 3组患者T0、T1、T2时BIS值、MAP、HR组间分别比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。与R3组比较,R1组、R2组在T1时点SpO2[(96.9±2.1)%、(96.2±2.9)%比(92.1±5.5)%]明显较高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);在T1时点R1组与R2组比较以及T2时点3组分别比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。丙泊酚用量R1组[(110±12) mg]、R2组[(65±8) mg]明显多于R3组[(48±6) mg],R1组丙泊酚用量也明显多于R2组,同时术中辅助呼吸R1组(6%)、R2组(9%)较R3组(21%)明显减少,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。与R2组、R3组比较,R1组患者苏醒时间、离院时间明显延长,术中体动及离院时眩晕发生较多(P<0.05),但R2组、R3组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。3组患者胃镜检查时间、术中知晓及术后恶心呕吐发生情况比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。 结论 以0.5 μg/kg瑞芬太尼辅助适量丙泊酚是胃镜检查中较适合的搭配方案。

关键词: 胃镜检查; 脑电双频指数; 瑞芬太尼; 丙泊酚
Abstract:

Objective To investigate the optimal dose of remifentanil combined with propofol in painless gastroscopy. Methods Aged 20-60 years old, ASA Ⅰ or Ⅱ, 300 cases of patients undergoing painless gastroscopy were randomly divided into three groups (n=100), group R1 (remifentanil 0.25 μg/kg), group R2 (remifentanil 0.5 μg/kg), group R3 (remifentanil 1.0 μg/kg). The values of BIS, MAP, HR, SpO2 were recorded in the time of pre-anesthesia (T0), gastroscope placement (T1) and gastroscope exit (T2), and other data were recorded including propofol dosage, assisted respiration, intraoperative body movement, gastroscopy time, recovery time, intraoperative awareness, nausea and vomiting, dizziness and time of departure from the hospital etc. Results There were no significant differences in the values of BIS, MAP, SpO2 among the three groups at T0, T1 and T2 (P>0.05). SpO2 of group R1[(96.9±2.1)%] and group R2 [(96.2±2.9)%] were higher than values of group R3 [(92.1±5.5)%]. At T1, the difference was statistically significant (P< 0.05), but there were no statistically significant between group R1 and group R2 at T1, and among the three groups at T2. The propofol dosage of group R1[(110±12) mg] and of group R2[(65±8) mg] were significantly higher than that in group R3 [(48±6) mg], the propofol dosage of group R1 also was significantly greater than that in group R2(P<0.05). Assisted respiration cases in group R1 (6%), group R2(9%) compared with group R3(21%) were obviously reduced, the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). When group R1 was compared with group R2 and group R3, there were significantly prolonged or more at the recovery time, the time of departure from the hospital, intraoperative body movement, and dizziness, the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05), but there was no statistical significance between the R2 group and R3 group(P>0.05). There was no significant difference among the three groups of patients at intraoperative awareness, gastroscopy time, nausea and vomiting (P>0.05). Conclusions This study suggests that 0.5 μg/kg remifentanil assisted appropriate propofol is the most suitable solution for gastroscopy.

Key words: Gastroscopy; Bispectral index; Remifentanil; Propofol