[Propofol infusion for sedation in regional anesthesia. A comparison with midazolam].

B Conrad, R Larsen, J Rathgeber, H Lange, H Stüber, T Crozier
{"title":"[Propofol infusion for sedation in regional anesthesia. A comparison with midazolam].","authors":"B Conrad,&nbsp;R Larsen,&nbsp;J Rathgeber,&nbsp;H Lange,&nbsp;H Stüber,&nbsp;T Crozier","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>50 non-premedicated ASA class I or II patients were allocated randomly into two groups and received either a variable infusion of propofol or midazolam for sedation during orthopaedic surgery with regional blockade. To achieve a well-sedated patient with eyes closed and able to follow commands, the dose requirements for propofol were 1.25 mg/kg +/- 0.5 as a loading dose followed by a mean infusion rate of 3.17 mg kg-1 h-1 +/- 1.4 and for midazolam 0.073 mg/kg +/-0.02 and 0.074 mg kg-1 h-1 +/- 0.14. Steady-state plasma concentrations of propofol averaged 1.23 micrograms/kg +/- 0.75 and of midazolam 134 ng/ml +/- 62. Recovery was significantly shorter for propofol: 3.42 +/- 2.5 versus 8.05 min +/6.2 for midazolam. Perioperative cooperation was similar in both groups providing good or excellent conditions in 76% with propofol and in 52% with midazolam. 2h after discontinuation of the infusion 92% of the propofol patients were alert, while 36% of the midazolam were sleeping again. Cardiovascular effects of both drugs were minimal; however significant respiratory depression and/or airway obstruction developed in both groups (propofol 48%, midazolam 52%) requiring therapeutic intervention. Additional undesirable effects were: severe cough (propofol 40%, midazolam 20%), inadvertent movements (propofol 36%, midazolam 24%), confusion (propofol 24%, midazolam 20%), euphoria (propofol 44%), pain on injection (propofol 32%). The results of the study indicate that both drugs are useful and controllable sedative agents for surgery under regional anaesthesia, provided that measures for continuous monitoring of respiration and emergency care are guaranteed.</p>","PeriodicalId":7813,"journal":{"name":"Anasthesie, Intensivtherapie, Notfallmedizin","volume":"25 3","pages":"186-92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1990-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anasthesie, Intensivtherapie, Notfallmedizin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

50 non-premedicated ASA class I or II patients were allocated randomly into two groups and received either a variable infusion of propofol or midazolam for sedation during orthopaedic surgery with regional blockade. To achieve a well-sedated patient with eyes closed and able to follow commands, the dose requirements for propofol were 1.25 mg/kg +/- 0.5 as a loading dose followed by a mean infusion rate of 3.17 mg kg-1 h-1 +/- 1.4 and for midazolam 0.073 mg/kg +/-0.02 and 0.074 mg kg-1 h-1 +/- 0.14. Steady-state plasma concentrations of propofol averaged 1.23 micrograms/kg +/- 0.75 and of midazolam 134 ng/ml +/- 62. Recovery was significantly shorter for propofol: 3.42 +/- 2.5 versus 8.05 min +/6.2 for midazolam. Perioperative cooperation was similar in both groups providing good or excellent conditions in 76% with propofol and in 52% with midazolam. 2h after discontinuation of the infusion 92% of the propofol patients were alert, while 36% of the midazolam were sleeping again. Cardiovascular effects of both drugs were minimal; however significant respiratory depression and/or airway obstruction developed in both groups (propofol 48%, midazolam 52%) requiring therapeutic intervention. Additional undesirable effects were: severe cough (propofol 40%, midazolam 20%), inadvertent movements (propofol 36%, midazolam 24%), confusion (propofol 24%, midazolam 20%), euphoria (propofol 44%), pain on injection (propofol 32%). The results of the study indicate that both drugs are useful and controllable sedative agents for surgery under regional anaesthesia, provided that measures for continuous monitoring of respiration and emergency care are guaranteed.

异丙酚输注用于局部麻醉镇静。[与咪达唑仑的比较]。
50例非预用药ASA I类或II类患者随机分为两组,分别在局部阻断骨科手术中接受异丙酚或咪达唑仑的可变输注镇静。为了使患者闭上眼睛并能够服从命令,异丙酚的剂量要求为1.25 mg/kg +/- 0.5作为负荷剂量,随后平均输注速率为3.17 mg kg-1 h-1 +/- 1.4,咪达唑仑为0.073 mg/kg +/-0.02和0.074 mg kg-1 h-1 +/- 0.14。异丙酚的稳态血浆浓度平均为1.23微克/千克+/- 0.75,咪达唑仑的稳态血浆浓度平均为134纳克/毫升+/- 62。异丙酚的恢复时间明显短于咪达唑仑:3.42 +/- 2.5,而咪达唑仑为8.05 +/6.2。两组围手术期配合情况相似,丙泊酚组76%,咪达唑仑组52%。停药2h后,92%的异丙酚患者恢复清醒,36%的咪达唑仑患者恢复睡眠。两种药物对心血管的影响都很小;然而,两组患者均出现明显的呼吸抑制和/或气道阻塞(异丙酚48%,咪达唑仑52%),需要进行治疗干预。其他不良反应有:严重咳嗽(异丙酚40%,咪达唑仑20%),无意的运动(异丙酚36%,咪达唑仑24%),精神错乱(异丙酚24%,咪达唑仑20%),兴奋(异丙酚44%),注射时疼痛(异丙酚32%)。研究结果表明,在保证呼吸持续监测和急救措施的情况下,这两种药物在区域麻醉手术中都是有用和可控的镇静剂。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信