-
随着病人对医疗舒适化的要求日益增加,程序化镇静镇痛(procedural sedation and analgesia,PSA)已经成为有创性诊断和治疗操作中缓解焦虑、不适和疼痛的一种应用广泛的麻醉方式[1]。镇静深度和镇痛深度是评价PSA有效性的两个最重要的指标。脑电双频谱指数(bispectral index,BIS)作为监测镇静深度可靠的客观指标,现已普遍用于临床[2]。而由于缺乏有效的测量手段,对于术中镇痛效果的评价往往只能通过评估病人心率、血压等生命体征的变化进行预判,这种方法的灵敏度不高[3]。近几年,越来越多的研究试图通过系统性分析测量疼痛指数(pain index,PI),评估病人术中对伤害性刺激的反应程度,从而指导麻醉过程中镇痛药物的使用[4-5]。然而,PI并非临床中的常规监测项目,目前临床上仍将BIS监测作为评估PSA有效性的主要参考指标[6]。既往研究[7]发现,在一定镇静深度下,疼痛刺激增加可以使BIS值上升。但PI与镇静深度的相关性到底如何,PI是否可以有效评判PSA的有效性尚未见报道。本研究拟通过观察镇静镇痛麻醉中不同时间点PI值与BIS值的变化,分析两者的相关性,探讨PI是否可以作为评估PSA有效性的可行性监测指标。现作报道。
-
所有病人均顺利完成麻醉和手术;术中、麻醉恢复室中和术后随访期间均未发生严重麻醉相关并发症。
随着局麻开始(T1),术中病人BIS值下降,T2~3时均低于T1(P < 0.05);T4时BIS值较T2~3有所回升(P < 0.05);T5~6时BIS值逐渐上升,均明显高于T1~4(P < 0.01),T6时亦明显高于T5(P < 0.01)(见表 1)。
时点 PI值 BIS值 T1 4.5±3.1 65.8±7.1 T2 3.8±1.6 63.0±8.7* T3 3.5±3.2 62.9±6.7* T4 5.1±3.1#▼▼ 65.8±6.7#▼ T5 6.4±4.2**##▼▼▽▽ 69.8±9.1**##▼▼▽▽ T6 6.8±4.3**##▼▼▽▽ 75.8±8.8**##▼▼▽▽▲▲ F 16.11 38.53 P < 0.01 < 0.01 MS组内 11.358 62.688 q检验:与T1比较*P < 0.05,**P < 0.01;与T2比较#P < 0.05,##P < 0.01;与T3比较▼P < 0.05,▼▼P < 0.01;与T4比较▽▽P < 0.01;与T5比较▲▲P < 0.01 表 1 各时间点BIS值与PI值(x±s)
PI值和BIS各时点变化趋势基本一致。随着局麻开始(T1),T2~3时病人PI值逐渐下降,但与T1时差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);T4时PI值较T2~3升高(P < 0.05和P < 0.01);停止输注右美托咪定后(T5~6)PI值逐渐上升,均明显高于T1~4(P < 0.01)(见表 1)。
程序化镇静镇痛中脑电疼痛指数与脑电双频谱指数的相关性分析
Correlation analysis between encephlogram pain index and bispectral index during procedural sedation and analgesia
-
摘要:
目的分析和评价程序化镇静镇痛中病人脑电疼痛指数(pain index,PI)与脑电双频谱指数(bispectral index,BIS)的相关性。 方法选择择期在程序化镇静镇痛下施行整形外科手术的病人100例,美国麻醉医师协会(American Society of Anesthesiologists,ASA)分级Ⅰ级或Ⅱ级,年龄18~53岁。麻醉开始给予所有病人静脉单次输注咪达唑仑0.04 mg/kg,同时静脉持续输注右美托咪定(负荷剂量1 μg/kg,后以0.4~0.7 μg·kg-1·h-1静脉持续输注)和瑞芬太尼0.1 μg·kg-1·min-1。待BIS值维持在60~80后,手术部位注射膨胀液局部麻醉。使用BIS VISTA监护仪和HXD-I多功能组合式监护仪分别测量和记录病人在局麻开始(T1)、手术开始(T2)、麻醉后30 min(T3)、麻醉后60 min(T4)、停止输注右美托咪定即刻(T5)、手术结束(T6)各时间点的BIS值和PI值。分析各时间点PI值与BIS的相关性。 结果在T1~T6各时点,PI值与BIS值均呈明显正相关关系(r=0.633~0.798,P < 0.05)。 结论在程序化镇静镇痛中,PI值与BIS值呈明显正相关关系,PI值随着BIS值(镇静的减浅或加深)而上升或下降,表明PI值可作为评估程序化镇静镇痛有效性的良好监测指标。 Abstract:ObjectiveTo analyze and evaluate the correlation between encephlogram pain index(PI) and bispectral index(BIS) during procedural sedation and analgesia. MethodsA total of 100 patients scheduled by plastic surgery under procedural sedation and analgesia, aged 18-53(grade Ⅰ or Ⅱ the American Society of Anesthesiologists were selected.All patients were anesthetized with intravenous injection of single 0.04 mg/kg of midazolam at the beginning of anesthesia, and continuous intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine(loading dose for 1 μg/kg, followed by 0.4 to 0.7 μg·kg-1·h-1) and remifentanil(0.1 μg·kg-1·min-1) at the same time.After the BIS value was sustained from 60 and 80, the dilating fluid was injected into the surgical site for local anesthesia.The PI and BIS value in all patients were measured and recorded at the beginning of local anesthesia and surgery(T1 and T2), after 30 min and 60 min of anesthesia induction(T3 and T4), immediately after turning off dexmedeto midine infusion(T5) and at the end of surgery(T6) using BIS VISTA monitor and HXD-I multi-function combined monitor, respectively.The correlation between PI and BIS at each time-point was analyzed. ResultsAt the time points of T1-T6, the PI value was significantly positively correlated with BIS value(r=0.633-0.798, P < 0.05). ConclusionsDuring procedural sedation and analgesia, the PI value is significantly correlated with BIS value.The PI value increases or decreases with the increasing and decreasing of BIS value(lightening or deepening of sedation), which suggests that the PI value can be used as a good monitor to assess the effectiveness of procedural sedation and analgesia. -
Key words:
- procedural sedation and analgesia /
- pain index /
- bispectral index
-
表 1 各时间点BIS值与PI值(x±s)
时点 PI值 BIS值 T1 4.5±3.1 65.8±7.1 T2 3.8±1.6 63.0±8.7* T3 3.5±3.2 62.9±6.7* T4 5.1±3.1#▼▼ 65.8±6.7#▼ T5 6.4±4.2**##▼▼▽▽ 69.8±9.1**##▼▼▽▽ T6 6.8±4.3**##▼▼▽▽ 75.8±8.8**##▼▼▽▽▲▲ F 16.11 38.53 P < 0.01 < 0.01 MS组内 11.358 62.688 q检验:与T1比较*P < 0.05,**P < 0.01;与T2比较#P < 0.05,##P < 0.01;与T3比较▼P < 0.05,▼▼P < 0.01;与T4比较▽▽P < 0.01;与T5比较▲▲P < 0.01 -
[1] 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. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000683 [2] LEE HC, RYU HG, CHUNG EJ, et al. Prediction of bispectral index during target-controlled infusion of propofol and remifentanil: a deep learning approach[J]. Anesthesiology, 2018, 128(3): 492. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001892 [3] LUGINBVHL M, YPPÄRILÄ-WOLTERS H, RVFENACHT M, et al. Heart rate variability does not discriminate between different levels of haemodynamic responsiveness during surgical anaesthesia[J]. Br J Anaesth, 2007, 98(6): 728. doi: 10.1093/bja/aem085 [4] SABOURDIN N, DIARRA C, WOLK R, et al. Pupillary pain index changes after a standardized bolus of alfentanil under sevoflurane anesthesia: first evaluation of a new pupillometric index to assess the level of analgesia during general anesthesia[J]. Anesth Analg, 2019, 128(3): 467. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003681 [5] JULIEN-MARSOLLIER F, RACHDI K, CABALLERO MJ, et al. Evaluation of the analgesia nociception index for monitoring intraoperative analgesia in children[J]. Br J Anaesth, 2018, 121(2): 462. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2018.03.034 [6] CONWAY A, SUTHERLAND J. Depth of anaesthesia monitoring during procedural sedation and analgesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Int J Nurs Stud, 2016, 63: 201. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.05.004 [7] ISELIN-CHAVES IA, FLAISHON R, SEBEL PS, et al. The effect of the interaction of propofol and alfentanil on recall, loss of consciousness, and the bispectral index[J]. Anesth Analg, 1998, 87(4): 949. doi: 10.1213/00000539-199810000-00038 [8] MENSOUR M, PINEAU R, SAHAI V, et al. Emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia: A Canadian Community Effectiveness and Safety Study (ACCESS)[J]. Can J Anaesth, 2006, 8(2): 94. [9] CONWAY A, SUTHERLAND J. Depth of anaesthesia monitoring during procedural sedation and analgesia: a systematic review protocol[J]. Syst Rev, 2015, 4(1): 1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 [10] AVCI S, BAYRAM B, ĪNANÇ G, et al. Evaluation of the compliance between EEG monitoring (Bispectral IndexTM) and Ramsey Sedation Scale to measure the depth of sedation in the patients who underwent procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department[J]. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg, 2019, 25(5): 447. [11] FERREIRA-VALENTE MA, PAIS-RIBEIRO JL, JENSEN MP. Validity of four pain intensity rating scales[J]. Pain, 2011, 152(10): 2399. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2011.07.005 [12] UPTON HD, LUDBROOK GL, WING A, et al. Intraoperative "Analgesia Nociception Index" guided fentanyl administration during sevoflurane anesthesia in lumbar discectomy and laminectomy: a randomized clinical trial[J]. Anesth Analg, 2017, 125(1): 81. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001984 [13] 陈学新, 马汉祥, 孟尽海, 等. 气管插管和放置喉罩对全麻用药量的影响[J]. 宁夏医学杂志, 2007, 29(12): 1090. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5949.2007.12.015 [14] 康娜, 吴安石. 脑电疼痛指数评估分娩镇痛产妇疼痛程度的有效性[J]. 临床麻醉学杂志, 2018, 34(4): 391. [15] 王智渊, 顾珏, 曹佳, 等. 脑功能状态仪疼痛指数在患者术后疼痛评估中的应用[J]. 临床麻醉学杂志, 2019, 35(7): 668. [16] KOCHS E, TREEDE RD, AM ESCH JS, et al. Modulation of pain-related somatosensory evoked potentials by general anesthesia[J]. Anesth Analg, 1990, 71(3): 225. [17] GUIGNARD B, MENIGAUX C, DUPONT X, et al. The effect of remifentanil on the bispectral index change and hemodynamic responses after orotracheal intubation[J]. Anesth Analg, 2000, 90(1): 161. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200001000-00034 [18] KOITABASHI T, JOHANSEN JW, SEBEL PS. Remifentanil dose/electroencephalogram bispectral response during combined propofol/regional anesthesia[J]. Anesth Analg, 2002, 94(6): 1530. doi: 10.1213/00000539-200206000-00028 [19] YUE H, HAN J, LIU L, et al. Effect of rocuronium on the bispectral index under anesthesia and tracheal intubation[J]. Exp Ther Med, 2016, 12(6): 3785. doi: 10.3892/etm.2016.3829 [20] ISELIN-CHAVES IA, FLAISHON R, SEBEL PS, et al. The effect of the interaction of propofol and alfentanil on recall, loss of consciousness, and the bispectral index[J]. Anesth Analg, 1998, 87(4): 949. doi: 10.1213/00000539-199810000-00038