-
BARR等[1]基于成人和儿童病人的随机试验表明,神经外科重症监护室(neurosurgical intensive care unit,NICU)病人最小化使用镇静剂可有效缩短机械通气时间和住院时间,有利于病人的早期康复训练。而深度镇静是重度创伤性颅脑损伤(severe traumatic brain injury, sTBI)病人入院后治疗的常规策略,用于控制病人的疼痛、焦虑、烦躁激动和呼吸机的人机同步[2]。但是深度镇静不仅延长气管插管保留时间,而且增加病人肺部感染风险,影响病人预后[3]。因此,采用适当的策略和措施sTBI病人进行镇静管理是NICU医护人员面临的重要课题。SHEHABI等[4]提出早期目标导向型镇静(early goal-directed sedation,EGDS)策略,即对机械通气病人在早期(12 h内)采用非苯二氮卓类为基础镇静药物,以浅镇静为目标导向的一种程序化镇静策略。然而,EGDS这一镇静策略是否适用于sTBI病人尚不明确。本研究通过盐酸右美托咪定注射液为基础的镇静药物,联合RASS评分使病人达到浅镇静状态,以探讨EGDS在sTBI病人的临床效果。现作报道。
-
2组病人年龄、性别、体质量、入院GCS评分和损伤类型差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)(见表 1)。
分组 n 年龄 男 体质量 GCS评分 损伤类型 急性硬膜下血肿 急性硬膜外血肿 额叶挫伤 颞叶挫伤 EGDS组 36 47.36±12.05 26 (72.22) 63.53±10.24 5.53±1.16 15 (41.67) 9 (25.00) 19 (52.78) 16 (44.44) 对照组 38 49.65±13.26 30(78.95) 62.82±9.37 5.75±1.23 18 (47.37) 11 (28.95) 23 (60.52) 19 (50.00) χ2 — 0.57* 0.87 0.31* 0.79* 0.24 0.14 0.45 0.23 P — >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 *示t值 表 1 2组病人一般资料比较[n; 百分率(%)]
-
持续镇静12 h,2组病人处于浅镇静、深镇静和烦躁的比例差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)(见表 2)。在镇静治疗30 min时EGDS组浅镇静病人占全部浅镇静的比例为54.55%,高于对照组的13.33%(χ2=4.81, P < 0.05);在镇静治疗1 h时EGDS组浅镇静病人占全部浅镇静的比例为77.27%,高于对照组的33.33%(χ2=7.14, P < 0.05)。
分组 n 浅镇静 烦躁 深镇静 χ2 P EGDS组 36 22 (61.11) 5 (13.89) 9 (25.00) 对照组 38 14 (36.84) 2 (5.27) 22 (57.89) 8.47 <0.05 合计 74 36(48.64) 7(9.46) 31(41.90) 表 2 2组病人在镇静12 h内镇静程度比较[n;百分率(%)]
-
用药前,2组平均动脉压、心率和呼吸频率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。用药后,2组病人呼吸频率和心率差异亦无统计学意义(P>0.05),但对照组的平均动脉压低于EGDS组(P < 0.05)。2组用药后呼吸频率和心率均较用药前明显降低(P < 0.01)(见表 3)。
分组 n 平均动脉压/mmHg 呼吸频率/ (次/分) 心率/ (次/分) 用药前 EGDS组 36 97.75±4.63 29.53±2.25 90.55±11.32 对照组 38 98.89±4.35 28.91±2.38 89.76±12.74 t — 0.84 1.26 0.82 P — >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 用药后 EGDS组 36 95.34±3.86 19.27±3.88** 77.65±11.36** 对照组 38 92.58±6.52** 21.18±2.64** 78.63±12.28** t — 4.78 1.83 0.87 P — <0.05 >0.05 >0.05 组内配对t′检验**P < 0.01 表 3 2组病人生命体征的比较(x±s)
早期目标导向型镇静联合RASS评分在重度创伤性颅脑损伤病人中的应用
Study on the early goal-directed sedation combined with RASS score in the application of patients with severe traumatic brain injury
-
摘要:
目的探讨早期目标导向型镇静(EGDS)策略联合RASS评分在重度创伤性颅脑损伤病人中的应用效果。 方法选择符合标准的74例重度创伤性颅脑损伤病人按随机数字法分为EGDS组和对照组。EGDS组中36例病人采用以盐酸右美托咪定注射液为主导的镇静药物实施EGDS策略;对照组中38例以咪达唑仑注射液为主导镇静药物实施常规镇静策略,镇静目标为维持RASS评分-2~1分,比较2组病人12 h内浅镇静的达标率和镇静治疗后第30 min及第1 h病人处于浅镇静状态的比例;比较2组镇静前、后平均动脉压、心率及呼吸频率变化。 结果持续镇静12 h,2组病人处于浅镇静、深镇静和烦躁的比例差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。在镇静治疗30 min时EGDS组浅镇静病人占全部浅镇静的比例为54.55%,高于对照组的13.33%(P < 0.05);在镇静治疗1 h时EGDS组浅镇静病人占全部浅镇静的比例为77.27%,高于对照组的33.33%(P < 0.05)。用药前,2组平均动脉压、心率和呼吸频率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。用药后,2组病人呼吸频率和心率差异亦无统计学意义(P>0.05),但对照组的平均动脉压明显低于EGDS组(P < 0.05)。2组用药后呼吸频率和心率均较用药前明显降低(P < 0.01)。 结论早期目标导向型镇静联合RASS评分相对安全、可行,较常规镇静策略能更有效使重度创伤性颅脑损伤病人达到早期浅镇静目标,舒适度高,安静配合,对生命体征干预少,安全有效,在具有广泛的临床应用前景。 -
关键词:
- 重度创伤性颅脑损伤 /
- 早期目标导向型镇静 /
- 盐酸右美托咪定注射液 /
- RASS评分 /
- 机械通气
Abstract:ObjectiveTo explore the effects of early goal-directed sedation(EGDS) strategy combined with RASS score in the application of patients with severe traumatic brain injury. MethodsSeventy-four patients with severe traumatic brain injury were randomly divided into the EGDS group(36 cases) and control group(38 cases).The sedative drug dexmedetomidine hydrochloride injection was used to implement the EGDS strategy in EGDS group, the midazolam injection was used as the leading sedative for routine sedation in control group, and the sedation goal was to maintain a RASS score of -2 to 1.The rate of reaching the standard of light sedation within 12 hours and proportion of patients with light sedation after 30 minutes and 1 hour of sedation were compared between two groups.The mean arterial pressure, heart rate and respiratory rate between two groups were compared before and after sedation. ResultsAfter 12 hours of continuous sedation, the differences of the proportions of light sedation, deep sedation and restlessness between two groups were statistically significant(P < 0.05).After 30 minutes of sedation treatment, the proportion of light sedation patients in EGDS group(54.55%) was higher than that in control group(13.33%)(P < 0.05).After 1h of sedation treatment, the proportion of light sedation patients in EGDS group(77.27%) was higher than that in control group(33.33%)(P < 0.05).There was no statistical significance in the mean arterial pressure, heart rate and respiratory frequency between two groups before treatment(P>0.05).There was no statistical significance in the heart rate and respiratory frequency between two groups after treatment(P>0.05), but the mean arterial pressure in control group was significantly lower than that in EGDS group(P < 0.05).After treatment, the respiratory frequency and heart rate in two groups were significantly lower than those before treatment(P < 0.01). ConclusionsCompared with standardized sedation strategy, the early goal-directed sedation combined with RASS score in the application of patients with severe traumatic brain injury is relatively safe and feasible, can achieve early light sedation goals with high comfort, quiet coordination and less intervention for vital signs, and has extensive clinical application prospect in clinic. -
表 1 2组病人一般资料比较[n; 百分率(%)]
分组 n 年龄 男 体质量 GCS评分 损伤类型 急性硬膜下血肿 急性硬膜外血肿 额叶挫伤 颞叶挫伤 EGDS组 36 47.36±12.05 26 (72.22) 63.53±10.24 5.53±1.16 15 (41.67) 9 (25.00) 19 (52.78) 16 (44.44) 对照组 38 49.65±13.26 30(78.95) 62.82±9.37 5.75±1.23 18 (47.37) 11 (28.95) 23 (60.52) 19 (50.00) χ2 — 0.57* 0.87 0.31* 0.79* 0.24 0.14 0.45 0.23 P — >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 *示t值 表 2 2组病人在镇静12 h内镇静程度比较[n;百分率(%)]
分组 n 浅镇静 烦躁 深镇静 χ2 P EGDS组 36 22 (61.11) 5 (13.89) 9 (25.00) 对照组 38 14 (36.84) 2 (5.27) 22 (57.89) 8.47 <0.05 合计 74 36(48.64) 7(9.46) 31(41.90) 表 3 2组病人生命体征的比较(x±s)
分组 n 平均动脉压/mmHg 呼吸频率/ (次/分) 心率/ (次/分) 用药前 EGDS组 36 97.75±4.63 29.53±2.25 90.55±11.32 对照组 38 98.89±4.35 28.91±2.38 89.76±12.74 t — 0.84 1.26 0.82 P — >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 用药后 EGDS组 36 95.34±3.86 19.27±3.88** 77.65±11.36** 对照组 38 92.58±6.52** 21.18±2.64** 78.63±12.28** t — 4.78 1.83 0.87 P — <0.05 >0.05 >0.05 组内配对t′检验**P < 0.01 -
[1] BARR J, FRASER GL, PUNTILLO K, et al.Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit[J].Crit Care Med, 2013, 41(1):263. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182783b72 [2] ODDO M, CRIPPA IA, MEHTA S, et al.Optimizing sedation in patients with acute brain injury[J].Crit Care, 2016, 20(1):128. doi: 10.1186/s13054-016-1294-5 [3] GEERAERTS T, VELLY L, ABDENNOUR L, et al.Management of severe traumatic brain injury(first 24hours)[J].Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med, 2018, 37(2):171. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2017.12.001 [4] SHEHABI Y, BELLOMO R, READE MC, et al.Early goal-directed sedation versus standard sedation in mechanically ventilated critically illpatients:a pilot study[J].Crit Care Med, 2013, 41(8):1983. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31828a437d [5] YAN K, PANG L, GAO H, et al.The Influence of Sedation Level Guided by Bispectral Index on Therapeutic Effects for Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury[J].World Neurosurg, 2018, 110:e671. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.11.079 [6] 徐建宁, 汪国建, 冯洁惠.早期目标导向型镇静用于ICU机械通气病人的效果评价[J].护理学杂志, 2016, 31(10):25. doi: 10.3870/j.issn.1001-4152.2016.10.025 [7] STOCCHETTI N, CARBONARA M, CITERIO G, et al.Severe traumatic brain injury:targeted management in the intensive care unit[J].Lancet Neurol, 2017, 16(6):452. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30118-7 [8] HALTMEIER T, BENJAMIN E, SIBONI S, et al.Prehospital intubation for isolated severe blunt traumatic brain injury:worse outcomes and higher mortality[J].Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2017, 3(6):731. [9] HOFFMANN M, CZORLICH P, LEHMANN W, et al.The impact of prehospital intubation with and without sedation on outcome in trauma patients with a GCS of 8 or less[J].J Neurosurg Anesthesiol, 2017, 29(2):161. doi: 10.1097/ANA.0000000000000275 [10] OGUNLADE J, ELIA C, DUONG J, et al.Severe traumatic brain injury requiring surgical decompression in the young adult:factors influencing morbidity and mortality-A retrospective analysis[J].Cureus, 2018, 10(7):e3042. [11] GROTH CM, ACQUISTO NM, KHADEM T.Current practices and safety of medication use during rapid sequence intubation[J].J Crit Care, 2018, 45:65. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.01.017 [12] ESNAULT P, MONTCRIOL A, D'ARANDA E, et al.Early neurological wake-up test in intubated brain-injured patients:A long-term, single-centre experience[J].Aust Crit Care, 2017, 30(5):273. doi: 10.1016/j.aucc.2016.10.002 [13] HINKELBEIN J, LAMPERTI M, AKESON J, et al.European Society of Anaesthesiology and European Board of Anaesthesiology guidelines for procedural sedation and analgesia in adults[J].Eur J Anaesthesiol, 2018, 35(1):6. [14] YOUSEFI H, TOGHYANI F, YAZDANNIK AR, et al.Effect of using Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale on duration of mechanical ventilation, typeand dosage of sedation on hospitalized patients in intensive care units[J].Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res, 2015, 20(6):700. doi: 10.4103/1735-9066.170008 [15] 徐春林, 冯石萍, 罗杰, 等.颅脑外伤病人躁动原因分析及应用镇静药物后呼吸频率、血氧分压及平均动脉压情况观察[J].蚌埠医学院学报, 2017, 42(2):172. [16] GU JW, YANG T, KUANG YQ, et al.Comparison of the safety and efficacy of propofol with midazolam for sedation of patients with severe traumatic brain injury:a meta-analysis[J].J Crit Care, 2014, 29(2):287. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2013.10.021 [17] PAJOUMAND M, KUFERA JA, BONDS BW, et al.Dexmedetomidine as an adjunct for sedation in patients with traumatic brain injury[J].J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2016, 81(2):345. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001069 [18] POP MK, DERVAR KR, DANSBY M, et al.Evaluation of Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale(RASS) in Mechanically Ventilated in the Emergency Department[J].Adv Emerg Nurs J, 2018, 40(2):131. doi: 10.1097/TME.0000000000000184 [19] HUMBLE SS, WILSON LD, LEATH TC, et al.ICU sedation with dexmedetomidine after severe traumatic brain injury[J].Brain Inj, 2016, 30(10):1266. doi: 10.1080/02699052.2016.1187289 [20] 邓书, 郭玲, 柳兆芳.右美托咪定双相血流动力学变化在老年病人全麻诱导中的应用[J].蚌埠医学院学报, 2016, 41(9):1185.