异丙酚与咪达唑仑异丙酚在喉罩插入中的对比。

L Godsiff, L Magee, G R Park
{"title":"异丙酚与咪达唑仑异丙酚在喉罩插入中的对比。","authors":"L Godsiff,&nbsp;L Magee,&nbsp;G R Park","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We evaluated the addition of midazolam to propofol during induction of anaesthesia by assessing laryngeal mask tolerance, haemodynamic variables, recovery times and cost. Forty patients (ASA grades I-IV) undergoing elective surgery were allocated randomly to receive a standard dose of propofol or a smaller dose of propofol combined with midazolam. A laryngeal mask was inserted and any episodes of coughing or hiccuping during its insertion or removal were recorded. Anaesthesia was maintained with nitrous oxide and enflurane with fentanyl for analgesia. After surgery, recovery times, pain, shivering, nausea, vomiting and analgesic requirements were recorded. The cost of the drugs used was also calculated. No significant differences were detected in any variables, except that patients given propofol needed more morphine in the recovery ward. The average cost of propofol alone was 3.47 pounds per anaesthetic, while the midazolam plus propofol cost was 2.03 pounds. Adding midazolam to propofol allowed a reduced dose of propofol to be used without adverse effects, while reducing the anaesthetic costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":11873,"journal":{"name":"European journal of anaesthesiology. Supplement","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1995-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Propofol versus propofol with midazolam for laryngeal mask insertion.\",\"authors\":\"L Godsiff,&nbsp;L Magee,&nbsp;G R Park\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We evaluated the addition of midazolam to propofol during induction of anaesthesia by assessing laryngeal mask tolerance, haemodynamic variables, recovery times and cost. Forty patients (ASA grades I-IV) undergoing elective surgery were allocated randomly to receive a standard dose of propofol or a smaller dose of propofol combined with midazolam. A laryngeal mask was inserted and any episodes of coughing or hiccuping during its insertion or removal were recorded. Anaesthesia was maintained with nitrous oxide and enflurane with fentanyl for analgesia. After surgery, recovery times, pain, shivering, nausea, vomiting and analgesic requirements were recorded. The cost of the drugs used was also calculated. No significant differences were detected in any variables, except that patients given propofol needed more morphine in the recovery ward. The average cost of propofol alone was 3.47 pounds per anaesthetic, while the midazolam plus propofol cost was 2.03 pounds. Adding midazolam to propofol allowed a reduced dose of propofol to be used without adverse effects, while reducing the anaesthetic costs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11873,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European journal of anaesthesiology. Supplement\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1995-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European journal of anaesthesiology. Supplement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of anaesthesiology. Supplement","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

摘要

我们通过评估喉罩耐受性、血流动力学变量、恢复时间和成本来评估咪达唑仑与异丙酚在麻醉诱导过程中的作用。40例择期手术患者(ASA分级I-IV级)随机分配接受标准剂量异丙酚或较小剂量异丙酚联合咪达唑仑。插入喉罩,并记录在插入或取出喉罩期间的任何咳嗽或打嗝事件。麻醉维持在一氧化二氮和安氟醚联合芬太尼镇痛。术后记录恢复时间、疼痛、寒战、恶心、呕吐和镇痛需求。还计算了所用药物的成本。除了服用异丙酚的患者在恢复病房需要更多的吗啡外,其他变量均无显著差异。每次使用异丙酚的平均费用为3.47英镑,而咪达唑仑加异丙酚的费用为2.03英镑。在异丙酚中加入咪达唑仑,可以减少异丙酚的使用剂量,而不会产生副作用,同时降低麻醉成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Propofol versus propofol with midazolam for laryngeal mask insertion.

We evaluated the addition of midazolam to propofol during induction of anaesthesia by assessing laryngeal mask tolerance, haemodynamic variables, recovery times and cost. Forty patients (ASA grades I-IV) undergoing elective surgery were allocated randomly to receive a standard dose of propofol or a smaller dose of propofol combined with midazolam. A laryngeal mask was inserted and any episodes of coughing or hiccuping during its insertion or removal were recorded. Anaesthesia was maintained with nitrous oxide and enflurane with fentanyl for analgesia. After surgery, recovery times, pain, shivering, nausea, vomiting and analgesic requirements were recorded. The cost of the drugs used was also calculated. No significant differences were detected in any variables, except that patients given propofol needed more morphine in the recovery ward. The average cost of propofol alone was 3.47 pounds per anaesthetic, while the midazolam plus propofol cost was 2.03 pounds. Adding midazolam to propofol allowed a reduced dose of propofol to be used without adverse effects, while reducing the anaesthetic costs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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