国际麻醉学与复苏杂志   2022, Issue (4): 0-0
    
乌拉地尔不同给药方式对脑深部电刺激术中 控制性降压的影响
高鑫, 李京生, 付惠群, 王天龙1()
1.首都医科大学宣武医院
Effects of different administration methods of urapidil on controlled hypotension during deep brain stimulation
 全文:
摘要:

目的 观察脑深部电刺激术(deep brain stimulation, DBS)术中乌拉地尔不同给药方式对控制性降压效果的影响。 方法 回顾性纳入行DBS的帕金森病(Parkinson disease, PD)患者179例,术中使用乌拉地尔进行控制性降压,分为乌拉地尔持续泵注组(C组,92例)和乌拉地尔分次静脉推注组(D组,87例)。C组将MAP降至目标值(患者基础MAP的80%)后继续持续泵注乌拉地尔5~25 mg/h,D组降MAP至目标值后根据MAP波动分次静脉推注给药。记录控制性降压期间(MAP降至目标值后1 h内每5 min)两组患者MAP的波动幅度、心率、SpO2,同时记录控制性降压期间两组患者围手术期并发症(包括血压异常增高、低血压、空气栓塞、颅内出血)的发生率和乌拉地尔使用总剂量。 结果 MAP降至目标值后,C组T1~T10时MAP波动幅度小于D组(P<0.05),T11、T12时MAP波动幅度两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组控制性降压期间心率、SpO2差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。C组围手术期血压异常增高、低血压发生率低于D组(P<0.05),两组空气栓塞、颅内出血发生率差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。C组控制性降压期间乌拉地尔使用总剂量低于D组(P<0.05)。 结论 PD患者行DBS,与分次静脉推注乌拉地尔相比,持续泵注乌拉地尔进行控制性降压的患者MAP更稳定,围手术期血压异常增高、低血压的发生率低,且乌拉地尔总使用剂量小。

关键词: 帕金森病; 脑深部电刺激术; 控制性降压; 乌拉地尔
Abstract:

Objective To observe the effects of different administration methods of urapidil on controlled hypotension during deep brain stimulation (DBS). Methods A total of 179 patients with Parkinson disease (PD) who underwent DBS were retrospectively included. Urapidil was used for controlled hypotension during the operation. The patients were divided into two groups: an urapidil continuous pumping group (group C, n=92) and a multiple intravenous infusion group (group C, n=87). Group C lowered mean artery pressure (MAP) to the target value (80% of the patient's basal MAP), before continuous infusion of urapidil at 5‒25 mg/h. Group D lowered MAP to the target and then intravenously administered with multiple doses according to MAP fluctuations. Their fluctuation range of MAP, heart rate and pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2) were recorded during controlled hypotension period (every 5 min within 1 h after MAP dropped to the target value). At the same time, the incidence of perioperative complications (including abnormal blood pressure increase, hypotension, air embolism, and intracranial hemorrhage) and the total dose of urapidil in the two groups were recorded during controlled hypotension period. Results After dropping to the target MAP, the fluctuation range of T1‒T10 MAP in group C was smaller than that in group D (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in the fluctuation range of T11 and T12 MAP between the two groups (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in heart rate and SpO2 between the two groups during controlled hypotension period (P>0.05). The incidences of abnormal increases in perioperative blood pressure and hypotension in group C were lower than those in group D (P<0.05); there was no significant difference in the incidences of air embolism and intracranial hemorrhage between the two groups (P>0.05). During controlled hypotension period, the total dose of urapidil in group C was lower than that in group D (P<0.05). Conclusions For PD patients undergoing DBS, compared with multiple intravenous infusion of urapidil, continuous pumping of urapidil for controlled hypotension can result in more stable MAP, abnormally increased blood pressure and a low hypotension incidence, with a small total dose of urapidil.

Key words: Parkinson disease; Deep brain stimulation; Controlled hypotension; Urapidil