• 中国科技论文统计源期刊
  • 中国科技核心期刊
  • 中国高校优秀期刊
  • 安徽省优秀科技期刊
Volume 44 Issue 4
Apr.  2019
Article Contents
Turn off MathJax

Citation:

Comparison of the safety and efficacy of different dosages of etomidate combined with propofol in colonoscopy of elderly patients

  • Corresponding author: TONG Sheng-yuan, 13966221486@163.com
  • Received Date: 2018-09-03
    Accepted Date: 2019-03-01
  • ObjectiveTo compare the safety and efficacy of different dosages of etomidate combined with propofol in colonoscopy of elderly patients.MethodsOne hundred and eighty patients scheduled by colonoscopy, were randomly divided into the propofol group(group P), propofol combined with etomidate group(group PE) and etomidate combined with propofol group(group EP).All patients were intravenously injected with 1 μg/kg fentanyl before 1 min of colonoscopy.The group P, group PE and group EP were injected with 1.5 mg/kg propofol, 1.0 mg/kg propofol combined with 0.05 mg/kg etomidate and 0.75 mg/kg propofol combined with 0.075 mg/kg etomidate, respectively.The mean aterial blood pressure, heart rate, saturation of peripheral oxygen, anesthesia duration, operation time, recovery time, discharge time, adverse reaction, and satisfaction degrees of patients, endoscopists and anesthetists in three groups were evaluated.ResultsCompared with the group P and group PE, the recovery time and discharge time in the group EP were significantly longer(P < 0.05 to P < 0.01).The incidence rates of hypotension, bradycardia and hypoxemia in the group P were significantly higher compared with the group PE and group EP(P < 0.05 to P < 0.01).The satisfaction degrees on anesthetists in the group PE and group EP were higher compared with the group P(P < 0.01).ConclusionsThe recovery time and discharge time in patients induced by 1.0 mg/kg propofol combined with 0.05 mg/kg etomida are shorter, and adverse reaction is less.
  • 加载中
  • [1] TRIANTAFILLIDIS JK, MERIKAS E, NIKOLAKIS D, et al.Sedation in gastrointestinal endscopy:Current issues[J].World J Gastroenterol, 2013, 19(4):463. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i4.463
    [2] HORIUCHI A, NAKAYAMA Y, KAJIYAMA M, et al.Safety and effectiveness of propofol sedation during and after outpatient colonoscopy[J].World J Gastroenterol, 2012, 18(26):3420.
    [3] HSU WH, WANG SS, SHIH HY, et al.Low effect-site concentration of propofol target-controlled infusion reduces the risk of hypotension during endoscopy in a Taiwanese population[J].J Dig Dis, 2013, 14(3):147.
    [4] LI X, LIU J, ZHOU M, et al.Parecoxib sodium pretreatment reduces myoclonus after etomidate:A prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial[J].Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2017, 55(7):601.
    [5] MENG QT, CAO C, LIU HM, et al.Safety and efficacy of etomidate and propofol anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy:A double-blind randomized clinical study[J].Exp Ther Med, 2016, 12(3):1515. doi: 10.3892/etm.2016.3475
    [6] TRAVIS AC, PICVSKY D, SALTZMAN JR.Endoscopy in the elderly[J].Am J Gastroenterol, 2012, 107(10):1495. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2012.246
    [7] BANIHASHEM N, ALIJANPOUR E, BASIRAT M, et al.Sedation with etomidate-fentanyl versus propofol-fentanyl in colonoscopies:A prospective randomized study[J].Caspian J Intern Med, 2015, 6(1):15.
    [8] COHEN LB, DELEGGE MH, AISENBERG J, et al.AGA institute review of endoscopic sedation[J].Gastroenterology, 2007, 133(2):675. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.06.002
    [9] OLOFSEN E, BOOM M, NIEUWENHUIJS D, et al.Modeling the non-steady state respiratory effects of remifentanil in awake and propofol-sedated healthy volunteers[J].Anesthesiology, 2010, 112(6):1382. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181d69087
    [10] DMELLO D.Supplemental corticosteroids after intubation using etomidate in severe sepsis and septic shock[J].Crit Care Med, 2012, 40(6):2003. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31824e1d0a
    [11] LIN OS, KOZAREK RA, TOMBS D, et al.The first US clinical experience with computer-assisted propofol sedation:a retrospective observational comparative study on efficacy, safety, efficiency, and endoscopist and patient satisfaction[J].Anesth Analg, 2017, 125(3):804. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001898
    [12] ZHOU X, LI BX, CHEN LM, et al.Etomidate plus propofol versus propofol alone for sedation during gastroscopy:a randomized prospective clinical trial[J].Surg Endosc, 2016, 30(11):5108.
    [13] LIU J, LIU R, MENG C, et al.Propofol decreases etomidate-related myoclonus in gastroscopy[J].Medicine, 2017, 96(26):e7212. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007212
  • 加载中
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Tables(4)

Article views(18870) PDF downloads(24) Cited by()

Related
Proportional views

Comparison of the safety and efficacy of different dosages of etomidate combined with propofol in colonoscopy of elderly patients

    Corresponding author: TONG Sheng-yuan, 13966221486@163.com
  • Department of Anesthesiology, The People's Hospital of Ningguo, Ningguo Anhui 242300, China

Abstract: ObjectiveTo compare the safety and efficacy of different dosages of etomidate combined with propofol in colonoscopy of elderly patients.MethodsOne hundred and eighty patients scheduled by colonoscopy, were randomly divided into the propofol group(group P), propofol combined with etomidate group(group PE) and etomidate combined with propofol group(group EP).All patients were intravenously injected with 1 μg/kg fentanyl before 1 min of colonoscopy.The group P, group PE and group EP were injected with 1.5 mg/kg propofol, 1.0 mg/kg propofol combined with 0.05 mg/kg etomidate and 0.75 mg/kg propofol combined with 0.075 mg/kg etomidate, respectively.The mean aterial blood pressure, heart rate, saturation of peripheral oxygen, anesthesia duration, operation time, recovery time, discharge time, adverse reaction, and satisfaction degrees of patients, endoscopists and anesthetists in three groups were evaluated.ResultsCompared with the group P and group PE, the recovery time and discharge time in the group EP were significantly longer(P < 0.05 to P < 0.01).The incidence rates of hypotension, bradycardia and hypoxemia in the group P were significantly higher compared with the group PE and group EP(P < 0.05 to P < 0.01).The satisfaction degrees on anesthetists in the group PE and group EP were higher compared with the group P(P < 0.01).ConclusionsThe recovery time and discharge time in patients induced by 1.0 mg/kg propofol combined with 0.05 mg/kg etomida are shorter, and adverse reaction is less.

  • 结肠镜检查是诊断与治疗门诊病人结、直肠疾病最常见的方法[1]。虽然持续时间短暂,但由于其侵袭性,病人常常伴随着疼痛、焦虑以及迷走神经反射,因此需要良好的麻醉镇静与镇痛[2]。丙泊酚由于其独特的药理特性以及快速苏醒优势广泛应用于门诊结肠镜检查,然而血流动力学及呼吸系统的不良反应发生率很高,尤其以老年病人较为常见[3]。依托咪酯有良好的血流动力学稳定性,对呼吸系统的影响甚微,常用于有心脏瓣膜疾病的病人或老年病人;由于其肌阵挛与术后恶心呕吐的不良反应而限制了临床应用[4]。丙泊酚0.75 mg/kg复合依托咪酯0.075 mg/kg与单纯的依托咪酯或丙泊酚比较能安全有效的应用于结肠镜检查,且不良反应更少[5];但是其他剂量的配伍甚少有人研究。随着老年社会的到来,老年病人接受结肠镜检查越来越普遍[6]。本研究拟比较不同剂量依托咪酯复合丙泊酚在老年病人结肠镜检查中的安全性及效果,旨在为病人提供更安全舒适的麻醉效果。现作报道。

1.   资料与方法
  • 本研究已获我院医学伦理委员会批准,并与病人签署知情同意书。拟行择期结肠镜检查病人188例,ASA分级Ⅰ~Ⅲ级,体质量指数(BMI)19~27 kg/m2,年龄65~79岁,采用随机数字表法将其分为3组:丙泊酚组(1.5 mg/kg,P组)、丙泊酚复合依托咪酯组(丙泊酚1.0 mg/kg+依托咪酯0.05 mg/kg,PE组)及依托咪酯复合丙泊酚组(丙泊酚0.75mg/kg+依托咪酯0.075 mg/kg,EP组)。排除标准:严重的肝肾功能不全、对本研究药物过敏、癫痫、肾上腺功能不全、药物滥用、肥胖、结直肠外科手术史。

  • 病人入室后开放静脉,常规监测平均动脉压(MAP)、心率(HR)和脉搏氧饱和度(SpO2),左侧卧位,鼻导管吸氧,氧流量8 L/min。结肠镜检查前1 min所有病人静脉注射芬太尼1 μg/kg(批号:1161116,湖北宜昌人福药业有限责任公司)。P组静脉注射丙泊酚1.5 mg/kg(批号:16LB6735, 1%竞安,丙泊酚中/长链脂肪乳注射液,北京费森尤斯卡比医药有限公司)。PE组静脉注射丙泊酚1.0 mg/kg复合依托咪酯0.05 mg/kg(批号:20170207,2%福尔利,江苏恩华药业股份有限公司)。EP组静脉注射丙泊酚0.75 mg/kg复合依托咪酯0.075 mg/kg。所有药物注射速度为3 mL/s。术中维持病人Ramsay镇静评分[7] 3~4分(1分为清醒;2分为烦躁;3分为听指令唤醒;4分为刺激唤醒;5分为深睡状态,呼唤不醒)。按需追加药物,P组追加量为丙泊酚30 mg。PE组为丙泊酚20 mg复合依托咪酯1 mg。EP组为丙泊酚15 mg复合依托咪酯1.5 mg。待病人睫毛反射消失后行结肠镜检查。当SpO2<92%持续10 s或窒息持续10 s,麻醉医生进行托下颌及面罩吸氧。当HR<50次/分时静脉注射阿托品0.5 mg。连续2次MAP下降﹥基础值20%时静脉注射去甲肾上腺素4 μg。由一名麻醉医生负责麻醉药物准备及病人资料收集。所有结肠镜检查由一名经验丰富的内镜医生操作。参与手术的内镜医生、护士、麻醉医生对实验内容不知情。

  • 病人入室5 min后测得的生命体征为基础值。记录麻醉诱导后每2 min的MAP、HR、SpO2。记录麻醉时间(从注射药物到意识消失)、结肠镜检查时间(内镜插入到拔出时间)、苏醒时间(停止注射药物到唤醒时间)、出院时间(唤醒到离院时间)。记录低血压(连续2次MAP下降>基础值20%)、心动过缓(HR<50次/分)、低氧血症(SpO2<92%持续10 s)、窒息(呼吸暂停持续10 s)的发生率。记录术中肌阵挛、术后60 min内恶心呕吐(PONV)、眩晕发生率(电话随访)。记录病人术后满意度,内镜医生满意度和麻醉医生满意度。

  • 采用方差分析、q检验、秩和检验及χ2检验。

2.   结果
  • 8例病人由于肠道准备差排除本研究。最终进入本研究P组60例,PE组60例,EP组60例。3组病人的年龄、性别构成及ASA分级构成情况差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);在BMI方面,P组高于PE组、EP组(P<0.05和P<0.01),PE组与EP组之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)(见表 1)。

    分组 n 年龄/岁 BMI/
    (kg/m2)
    ASA分级
    P组 60 67.15±8.23 38 22 24.18±1.94 7 34 19
    PE组 60 68.30±7.93 35 25 23.11±2.11 9 33 18
    EP组 60 66.84±9.12 34 26 22.76±2.87△△ 10 35 15
    F 0.50 0.60* 5.99 1.10*
    P >0.05 >0.05 <0.05 >0.05
    MS组内 71.264 5.484
    *示χ2值; q检验:与P组比较△P<0.05, △△P<0.01
  • 3组麻醉时间与结肠镜检查时间方面差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);EP组苏醒时间与出院时间长于P组和PE组(P<0.05~P<0.01),P组和PE组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)(见表 2)。

    分组 n 麻醉时间 结肠镜检查时间 苏醒时间 出院时间
    P组 60 10.35±2.58 8.62±2.58 1.78±0.58 14.37±1.85
    PE组 60 11.35±1.78 9.30±1.98 1.91±0.62 14.50±1.70
    EP组 60 10.65±2.41 8.73±2.24 2.20±0.87**△ 16.08±3.40**△△
    F 3.03 1.54 5.63 9.13
    P >0.05 >0.05 <0.01 <0.01
    MS组内 5.211 5.198 0.493 5.958
    q检验:与P组比较**P<0.01;与PE组比较△P<0.05, △△P<0.01
  • P组低血压、窦性心动过缓、低氧血症生率均高于PE组和EP组(P<0.05~P<0.01), PE组与EP组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);3组窒息、肌阵挛、PONV、眩晕的发生率差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)(见表 3)。

    分组 n 低血压 窦性心动过缓 低氧血症 窒息 肌阵挛 PONV 眩晕
    P组 60 23(38.3) 11(18.3) 18(30.0) 6(10.0) 2(3.3) 3(5.0) 6(10.0)
    PE组 60 5(8.3)** 3(5.0)* 3(5.0)** 1(1.7) 3(5.0) 4(6.7) 7(11.6)
    EP组 60 3(5.0)** 2(3.3)** 4(6.7)** 1(1.7) 3(5.0) 5(8.3) 14(23.3)
    合计 180 31(17.2) 16(8.9) 25(13.9) 8(4.4) 8(4.4) 12(6.7) 27(15.0)
    χ2 28.37 10.02 19.61 6.54 0.26 0.54 4.96
    P <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05
    χ2检验:与P组比较*P<0.05,**P<0.01
  • 3组病人满意度与内镜医生满意度方面差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);PE组和EP组麻醉医生满意度均明显高于P组(P<0.01),PE组与EP组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)(见表 4)。

    满意度 P组 PE组 EP组 Hc P
    病人满意度
      好 38(63.3) 42(70.0) 34(56.7)
      一般 19(32.0) 17(28.3) 13(21.6) 4.74 >0.05
      不好 3(5.0) 1(1.6) 13(21.6)
    内镜医生满意度
      好 50(83.3) 52(86.7) 55(91.6)
      一般 10(16.7) 8(13.3) 5(8.3) 1.89 >0.05
      不好 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0)
    麻醉医生满意度
      好 26(43.3) 47(78.0)** 44(73.3)**
      一般 15(25.0) 14(23.0) 13(21.7) 21.17 <0.05
      不好 19(31.6) 2(3.3) 3(5.0)
    与P组比较**P<0.01
3.   讨论
  • 结肠镜检查复合麻醉不仅可以减少病人的不适感,而且可以给术者提供良好的手术环境。但是麻醉会延迟病人苏醒及出院,而且增加心肺并发症的风险,尤其是对老年病人[7]。有研究[8]表明,老年病人胃肠镜术后易出现低氧血症、心律失常,甚至心肌缺血。术中维持血流动力学平稳及充足的自主呼吸对于老年病人至关重要。因此,临床中应用不同的麻醉药物组合,以期达到诱导迅速、麻醉效果确切、血流动力学平稳、快速苏醒以及不良反应最小化的效果。考虑到依托咪酯严重的不良反应,本研究未设单纯依托咪酯对照组。

    丙泊酚由于起效及代谢迅速而广泛应用于门诊病人。但是丙泊酚对血管的扩张及对交感神经的抑制作用易导致低血压。研究[9]表明丙泊酚诱导时25%~30%病人出现窒息,25%~40%病人出现低血压,而这些都是脑损伤潜在危险因素。本研究结果表明,与PE组、EP组比较,P组低血压、心动过缓发生率较高。可能与丙泊酚抑制心肌收缩力、减弱心血管系统反应性有关。相对而言,依托咪酯有良好的血流动力学稳定性,这与其不影响交感神经紧张性放电及自主调节有关,且依托咪酯对冠脉有轻度扩张作用[10],对于老年病人结肠镜检查更安全。

    与PE组、EP组比较,P组低氧血症的发生率较高。丙泊酚对呼吸系统的抑制作用与药物剂量、推注速度有关, 特别是对于老年病人[11]。依托咪酯对呼吸影响轻微,而且其安全范围大于丙泊酚。依托咪酯复合丙泊酚能降低对呼吸系统的抑制作用。

    依托咪酯诱导50%~80%病人出现肌阵挛;肌阵挛常常干扰生命体征监测、导致术后肌痛及血清电解质异常等[12]。本研究结果显示,3组术中肌阵挛发生率差异无统计学意义。说明依托咪酯复合丙泊酚可以降低肌阵挛发生,可能与丙泊酚可以调节GABAA受体而降低中枢神经系统的活性以及增加大脑伏核中多巴胺水平有关[13]。PONV是依托咪酯另一严重并发症,本研究结果显示,3组PONV比较差异无统计学意义,推测原因为丙泊酚的止吐作用。与P组、PE组比较,EP组病人满意度更低,主要原因为眩晕。与PE组、EP组比较,P组麻醉医生满意度较低,主要原因为术中低血压及呼吸抑制。

    综上所述,以丙泊酚1.0 mg/kg复合依托咪酯0.05 mg/kg用于老年病人结肠镜检查, 病人苏醒时间及出院时间更短,不良反应更少。

Reference (13)

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return