H. Iftikhar, Aneel Aslam, H. Rehman, Z. Ali, M. Abbass, Zulfiqar Haider
{"title":"剖宫产妇女脊柱麻醉时0.5%和0.75%高压布比卡因血流动力学稳定性的比较","authors":"H. Iftikhar, Aneel Aslam, H. Rehman, Z. Ali, M. Abbass, Zulfiqar Haider","doi":"10.51253/pafmj.v6i6.5900","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To compare the effect of 0.5% and 0.75% hyperbaric Bupivacaine on haemodynamic stability in terms of mean systolic blood pressure and heart rate recorded at 4 min in patients undergoing caesarian section in spinal anesthesia. \nStudy Design: Quasi experimental study. \nPlace and Duration of Study: Department of Anaesthesiology, Combined Military Hospital, Malir, from Jul to Dec 2018. \nMethodology: The patients were assigned in two groups (A and B) using lottery method. Group A received 0.5% hyperbaric Bupivacaine solution. Group B received 0.5% hyperbaric Bupivacaine solution. Spinal anaesthesia was given, blood pressure and heart rate were recorded. Data were analyzed in SPSS version 23. Both groups were compared for mean systolic blood pressure and heart rate by using independent sample t-test. \nResults: The mean age of patients was 29.62 ± 6.21 years in 0.75% Bupivacaine group while 29.31 ± 6.20 years in 0.5% Bupivacaine group. The mean systolic blood pressure of patients was 111.63 ± 5.96 mmHg in 0.75% Bupivacaine group while 117.16 ± 7.12 mmHg in 0.5% Bupivacaine group. The difference was significant in both groups (p-value <0.05). The mean heart rate of patients was 92.27 ± 4.71 beats per min (bpm) in 0.75% Bupivacaine group while 97.68 ± 4.58 bpm in 0.5% Bupivacaine group. The difference was significant in both groups (p-value <0.05). \nConclusion: 0.5% hyperbaric Bupivacaine was better than 0.75% hyperbaric Bupivacaine solution in spinal anaesthesia during caesarean section.","PeriodicalId":19982,"journal":{"name":"PAFMJ","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"COMPARISON OF HAEMODYNAMIC STABILITY WITH 0.5% AND 0.75% HYPERBARIC BUPIVACAINE DURING SPINAL ANAESTHESIA IN WOMEN UNDERGOING CAESAREAN SECTION\",\"authors\":\"H. Iftikhar, Aneel Aslam, H. Rehman, Z. Ali, M. Abbass, Zulfiqar Haider\",\"doi\":\"10.51253/pafmj.v6i6.5900\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: To compare the effect of 0.5% and 0.75% hyperbaric Bupivacaine on haemodynamic stability in terms of mean systolic blood pressure and heart rate recorded at 4 min in patients undergoing caesarian section in spinal anesthesia. \\nStudy Design: Quasi experimental study. \\nPlace and Duration of Study: Department of Anaesthesiology, Combined Military Hospital, Malir, from Jul to Dec 2018. \\nMethodology: The patients were assigned in two groups (A and B) using lottery method. Group A received 0.5% hyperbaric Bupivacaine solution. Group B received 0.5% hyperbaric Bupivacaine solution. Spinal anaesthesia was given, blood pressure and heart rate were recorded. Data were analyzed in SPSS version 23. Both groups were compared for mean systolic blood pressure and heart rate by using independent sample t-test. \\nResults: The mean age of patients was 29.62 ± 6.21 years in 0.75% Bupivacaine group while 29.31 ± 6.20 years in 0.5% Bupivacaine group. The mean systolic blood pressure of patients was 111.63 ± 5.96 mmHg in 0.75% Bupivacaine group while 117.16 ± 7.12 mmHg in 0.5% Bupivacaine group. The difference was significant in both groups (p-value <0.05). The mean heart rate of patients was 92.27 ± 4.71 beats per min (bpm) in 0.75% Bupivacaine group while 97.68 ± 4.58 bpm in 0.5% Bupivacaine group. The difference was significant in both groups (p-value <0.05). \\nConclusion: 0.5% hyperbaric Bupivacaine was better than 0.75% hyperbaric Bupivacaine solution in spinal anaesthesia during caesarean section.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19982,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PAFMJ\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PAFMJ\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v6i6.5900\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PAFMJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v6i6.5900","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
目的:比较0.5%和0.75%高压布比卡因对腰麻剖宫产患者4 min平均收缩压和心率的影响。研究设计:准实验研究。学习地点及时间:2018年7月至12月,马里尔军队联合医院麻醉科。方法:采用摇号法将患者分为A组和B组。A组给予0.5%高压布比卡因溶液。B组给予0.5%高压布比卡因溶液。给予脊髓麻醉,记录血压和心率。数据采用SPSS version 23进行分析。采用独立样本t检验比较两组的平均收缩压和心率。结果:0.75%布比卡因组患者平均年龄为29.62±6.21岁,0.5%布比卡因组患者平均年龄为29.31±6.20岁。0.75%布比卡因组患者平均收缩压为111.63±5.96 mmHg, 0.5%布比卡因组患者平均收缩压为117.16±7.12 mmHg。两组比较差异有统计学意义(p值<0.05)。0.75%布比卡因组患者平均心率为92.27±4.71次/ min (bpm), 0.5%布比卡因组患者平均心率为97.68±4.58次/ min。两组比较差异有统计学意义(p值<0.05)。结论:0.5%高压布比卡因比0.75%高压布比卡因溶液用于剖宫产术中脊柱麻醉效果更好。
COMPARISON OF HAEMODYNAMIC STABILITY WITH 0.5% AND 0.75% HYPERBARIC BUPIVACAINE DURING SPINAL ANAESTHESIA IN WOMEN UNDERGOING CAESAREAN SECTION
Objective: To compare the effect of 0.5% and 0.75% hyperbaric Bupivacaine on haemodynamic stability in terms of mean systolic blood pressure and heart rate recorded at 4 min in patients undergoing caesarian section in spinal anesthesia.
Study Design: Quasi experimental study.
Place and Duration of Study: Department of Anaesthesiology, Combined Military Hospital, Malir, from Jul to Dec 2018.
Methodology: The patients were assigned in two groups (A and B) using lottery method. Group A received 0.5% hyperbaric Bupivacaine solution. Group B received 0.5% hyperbaric Bupivacaine solution. Spinal anaesthesia was given, blood pressure and heart rate were recorded. Data were analyzed in SPSS version 23. Both groups were compared for mean systolic blood pressure and heart rate by using independent sample t-test.
Results: The mean age of patients was 29.62 ± 6.21 years in 0.75% Bupivacaine group while 29.31 ± 6.20 years in 0.5% Bupivacaine group. The mean systolic blood pressure of patients was 111.63 ± 5.96 mmHg in 0.75% Bupivacaine group while 117.16 ± 7.12 mmHg in 0.5% Bupivacaine group. The difference was significant in both groups (p-value <0.05). The mean heart rate of patients was 92.27 ± 4.71 beats per min (bpm) in 0.75% Bupivacaine group while 97.68 ± 4.58 bpm in 0.5% Bupivacaine group. The difference was significant in both groups (p-value <0.05).
Conclusion: 0.5% hyperbaric Bupivacaine was better than 0.75% hyperbaric Bupivacaine solution in spinal anaesthesia during caesarean section.