全麻下腹腔镜手术中右美托咪定雾化和静脉注射的血液动力学和阿片类药物储备效果的比较。

Q3 Medicine
Kantharaju Shankar, S. Rangalakshmi, P. Kailash, D. Priyanka
{"title":"全麻下腹腔镜手术中右美托咪定雾化和静脉注射的血液动力学和阿片类药物储备效果的比较。","authors":"Kantharaju Shankar, S. Rangalakshmi, P. Kailash, D. Priyanka","doi":"10.6859/aja.202203_60(1).0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nDexmedetomidine has been used by multiple routes in laparoscopic surgeries to attenuate the hemodynamic response. The present study was done to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine nebulization with intravenous dexmedetomidine and fentanyl in laparoscopic surgeries under general anesthesia.\n\n\nMETHODS\nA prospective, double blind study was conducted, and 90 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I and II patients of either gender between 18-65 years undergoing laparoscopic surgeries under general anesthesia were randomized into three groups. (1) Group N (n = 30) received dexmedetomidine nebulization 1 mcg/kg in 3 mL of 0.9% saline 15 minutes before induction and 10 mL of intravenous 0.9% saline over 10 minutes at the time of induction of anesthesia. (2) Group I (n = 30) received 0.9% saline nebulization 3 mL and intravenous dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg in 10 mL of 0.9% saline. (3) Group F (n = 30) received 0.9% saline nebulization 3 mL and intravenous fentanyl 2 mcg/kg in 10mL of 0.9% saline. Heart rate, blood pressure, propofol requirement, and opioid consumption were monitored throughout surgery and for 1 hour in post-operative period. Statistical analysis was done by using analysis of variance test, chi-square test. P value < 0.05 was considered signifi cant.\n\n\nRESULTS\nSuppression of hemodynamic response following intubation and pneumoperitoneum by dexmedetomidine nebulization was compared to intravenous dexmedetomidine and fentanyl. Opioid requirement was significantly lower in dexmedetomidine group than fentanyl group (P < 0.05). Propofol requirement was lower with intravenous and nebulized dexmedetomidine than intravenous fentanyl.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nIn laparoscopic surgeries, nebulized dexmedetomidine suppresses hemodynamic response when compared to intravenous dexmedetomidine along with dose sparing effect of opioid and propofol.","PeriodicalId":8482,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of anesthesiology","volume":"60 1 1","pages":"33-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Hemodynamics and Opioid Sparing Effect of Dexmedetomidine Nebulization and Intravenous Dexmedetomidine in Laparoscopic Surgeries Under General Anesthesia.\",\"authors\":\"Kantharaju Shankar, S. Rangalakshmi, P. Kailash, D. Priyanka\",\"doi\":\"10.6859/aja.202203_60(1).0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\nDexmedetomidine has been used by multiple routes in laparoscopic surgeries to attenuate the hemodynamic response. The present study was done to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine nebulization with intravenous dexmedetomidine and fentanyl in laparoscopic surgeries under general anesthesia.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nA prospective, double blind study was conducted, and 90 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I and II patients of either gender between 18-65 years undergoing laparoscopic surgeries under general anesthesia were randomized into three groups. (1) Group N (n = 30) received dexmedetomidine nebulization 1 mcg/kg in 3 mL of 0.9% saline 15 minutes before induction and 10 mL of intravenous 0.9% saline over 10 minutes at the time of induction of anesthesia. (2) Group I (n = 30) received 0.9% saline nebulization 3 mL and intravenous dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg in 10 mL of 0.9% saline. (3) Group F (n = 30) received 0.9% saline nebulization 3 mL and intravenous fentanyl 2 mcg/kg in 10mL of 0.9% saline. Heart rate, blood pressure, propofol requirement, and opioid consumption were monitored throughout surgery and for 1 hour in post-operative period. Statistical analysis was done by using analysis of variance test, chi-square test. P value < 0.05 was considered signifi cant.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nSuppression of hemodynamic response following intubation and pneumoperitoneum by dexmedetomidine nebulization was compared to intravenous dexmedetomidine and fentanyl. Opioid requirement was significantly lower in dexmedetomidine group than fentanyl group (P < 0.05). Propofol requirement was lower with intravenous and nebulized dexmedetomidine than intravenous fentanyl.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSIONS\\nIn laparoscopic surgeries, nebulized dexmedetomidine suppresses hemodynamic response when compared to intravenous dexmedetomidine along with dose sparing effect of opioid and propofol.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8482,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian journal of anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\"60 1 1\",\"pages\":\"33-40\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian journal of anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6859/aja.202203_60(1).0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian journal of anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6859/aja.202203_60(1).0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:右美托咪定已在腹腔镜手术中通过多种途径使用,以减轻血流动力学反应。本研究比较了右美托咪定雾化与静脉注射右美托咪定和芬太尼在全麻下腹腔镜手术中的疗效。方法采用前瞻性双盲研究,选取年龄在18 ~ 65岁之间接受腹腔镜全麻手术的美国麻醉学会(ASA) I级和II级患者90例,随机分为3组。(1) N组(N = 30)在诱导前15分钟滴注右美托咪定1 mcg/kg于0.9%生理盐水3 mL中,诱导麻醉时10分钟内静脉滴注0.9%生理盐水10 mL。(2) I组(n = 30)给予0.9%生理盐水雾化3 mL,右美托咪定1 mcg/kg静脉滴注于0.9%生理盐水10 mL中。(3) F组(n = 30)给予0.9%生理盐水雾化3ml,芬太尼2 mcg/kg静脉滴注于0.9%生理盐水10mL中。在整个手术过程和术后1小时监测心率、血压、异丙酚需用量和阿片类药物用量。统计学分析采用方差分析、卡方检验。P值< 0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果将右美托咪定雾化对插管和气腹后血流动力学反应的抑制效果与静脉注射右美托咪定和芬太尼进行比较。右美托咪定组阿片需求量显著低于芬太尼组(P < 0.05)。右美托咪定静脉和雾化丙泊酚需要量低于芬太尼静脉注射。结论在腹腔镜手术中,与静脉注射右美托咪定相比,雾化右美托咪定可抑制血流动力学反应,并具有阿片类药物和异丙酚的剂量节约作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Hemodynamics and Opioid Sparing Effect of Dexmedetomidine Nebulization and Intravenous Dexmedetomidine in Laparoscopic Surgeries Under General Anesthesia.
BACKGROUND Dexmedetomidine has been used by multiple routes in laparoscopic surgeries to attenuate the hemodynamic response. The present study was done to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine nebulization with intravenous dexmedetomidine and fentanyl in laparoscopic surgeries under general anesthesia. METHODS A prospective, double blind study was conducted, and 90 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I and II patients of either gender between 18-65 years undergoing laparoscopic surgeries under general anesthesia were randomized into three groups. (1) Group N (n = 30) received dexmedetomidine nebulization 1 mcg/kg in 3 mL of 0.9% saline 15 minutes before induction and 10 mL of intravenous 0.9% saline over 10 minutes at the time of induction of anesthesia. (2) Group I (n = 30) received 0.9% saline nebulization 3 mL and intravenous dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg in 10 mL of 0.9% saline. (3) Group F (n = 30) received 0.9% saline nebulization 3 mL and intravenous fentanyl 2 mcg/kg in 10mL of 0.9% saline. Heart rate, blood pressure, propofol requirement, and opioid consumption were monitored throughout surgery and for 1 hour in post-operative period. Statistical analysis was done by using analysis of variance test, chi-square test. P value < 0.05 was considered signifi cant. RESULTS Suppression of hemodynamic response following intubation and pneumoperitoneum by dexmedetomidine nebulization was compared to intravenous dexmedetomidine and fentanyl. Opioid requirement was significantly lower in dexmedetomidine group than fentanyl group (P < 0.05). Propofol requirement was lower with intravenous and nebulized dexmedetomidine than intravenous fentanyl. CONCLUSIONS In laparoscopic surgeries, nebulized dexmedetomidine suppresses hemodynamic response when compared to intravenous dexmedetomidine along with dose sparing effect of opioid and propofol.
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
Asian journal of anesthesiology
Asian journal of anesthesiology Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Asian Journal of Anesthesiology (AJA), launched in 1962, is the official and peer-reviewed publication of the Taiwan Society of Anaesthesiologists. It is published quarterly (March/June/September/December) by Airiti and indexed in EMBASE, Medline, Scopus, ScienceDirect, SIIC Data Bases. AJA accepts submissions from around the world. AJA is the premier open access journal in the field of anaesthesia and its related disciplines of critical care and pain in Asia. The number of Chinese anaesthesiologists has reached more than 60,000 and is still growing. The journal aims to disseminate anaesthesiology research and services for the Chinese community and is now the main anaesthesiology journal for Chinese societies located in Taiwan, Mainland China, Hong Kong and Singapore. AJAcaters to clinicians of all relevant specialties and biomedical scientists working in the areas of anesthesia, critical care medicine and pain management, as well as other related fields (pharmacology, pathology molecular biology, etc). AJA''s editorial team is composed of local and regional experts in the field as well as many leading international experts. Article types accepted include review articles, research papers, short communication, correspondence and images.
×
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