异丙酚、右美托咪定和咪达唑仑静脉镇静在双j输尿管支架取出中的比较。

IF 1.5 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Hamidreza Shetabi, Faride Akrami Moghaddam, Reza Kazemi
{"title":"异丙酚、右美托咪定和咪达唑仑静脉镇静在双j输尿管支架取出中的比较。","authors":"Hamidreza Shetabi,&nbsp;Faride Akrami Moghaddam,&nbsp;Reza Kazemi","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>According to the favorable effects of combination therapy to provide better sedation during double-j stent removal and lack of studies investigating the sedative effect of propofol, dexmedetomidine, and midazolam during this procedure. This study aimed to compare the effects of intravenous sedation with propofol, dexmedetomidine and midazolam in double-J ureteral stent removal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This double-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted on 120 patients aged 18-72 who underwent double-J ureteral stent removal in Alzahra hospital, Isfahan, Iran from September to November 2021. Patients were randomly divided into 3 groups. In the first group, propofol was titrated with normal saline and was infused with a loading dose of 0.5 mg/kg and a maintenance dose of 1.5-2.5 mg/kg/h. In the second group, Dexmedetomidine was titrated with normal saline and was infused at a dose of 1 µg/kg within 10 min and then continued at 0.45-0.55 µg/kg. In third group, midazolam was titrated was infused with a loading dose of 0.05 mg/kg and a maintenance dose of 0.05 mg/kg/h. 50 mg of fentanyl was also infused in all the groups. If the patients did not reach the desired sedation level, 10 mg ketamine was infused as a rescue sedative agent for all three groups and repeated if needed in all groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The current study was conducted on 120 patients who underwent double-J ureteral stent removal. The comparison of the sedative effect of midazolam, dexmedetomidine, and propofol showed significant differences among the three groups and was higher in the midazolam group (P=0.018). Between the three groups systolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure was significantly lower in the propofol group (P=0.002). Heart rate was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group during both surgery and recovery time (P<0.001). There was no significant difference among the groups during surgery regarding oxygen saturation (<i>P</i> value =0.84). The intergroup comparison indicates that the mean score of surgeon satisfaction is significantly higher in the midazolam group (<i>P</i>-value =0.039).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>According to this study midazolam was superior to two other groups and was associated with deeper sedation and higher satisfaction among both patient and surgeon.</p>","PeriodicalId":7438,"journal":{"name":"American journal of clinical and experimental urology","volume":"11 2","pages":"160-167"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10165230/pdf/ajceu0011-0160.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of intravenous sedation with propofol, dexmedetomidine and midazolam in double-J ureteral stent removal.\",\"authors\":\"Hamidreza Shetabi,&nbsp;Faride Akrami Moghaddam,&nbsp;Reza Kazemi\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>According to the favorable effects of combination therapy to provide better sedation during double-j stent removal and lack of studies investigating the sedative effect of propofol, dexmedetomidine, and midazolam during this procedure. This study aimed to compare the effects of intravenous sedation with propofol, dexmedetomidine and midazolam in double-J ureteral stent removal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This double-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted on 120 patients aged 18-72 who underwent double-J ureteral stent removal in Alzahra hospital, Isfahan, Iran from September to November 2021. Patients were randomly divided into 3 groups. In the first group, propofol was titrated with normal saline and was infused with a loading dose of 0.5 mg/kg and a maintenance dose of 1.5-2.5 mg/kg/h. In the second group, Dexmedetomidine was titrated with normal saline and was infused at a dose of 1 µg/kg within 10 min and then continued at 0.45-0.55 µg/kg. In third group, midazolam was titrated was infused with a loading dose of 0.05 mg/kg and a maintenance dose of 0.05 mg/kg/h. 50 mg of fentanyl was also infused in all the groups. If the patients did not reach the desired sedation level, 10 mg ketamine was infused as a rescue sedative agent for all three groups and repeated if needed in all groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The current study was conducted on 120 patients who underwent double-J ureteral stent removal. The comparison of the sedative effect of midazolam, dexmedetomidine, and propofol showed significant differences among the three groups and was higher in the midazolam group (P=0.018). Between the three groups systolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure was significantly lower in the propofol group (P=0.002). Heart rate was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group during both surgery and recovery time (P<0.001). There was no significant difference among the groups during surgery regarding oxygen saturation (<i>P</i> value =0.84). The intergroup comparison indicates that the mean score of surgeon satisfaction is significantly higher in the midazolam group (<i>P</i>-value =0.039).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>According to this study midazolam was superior to two other groups and was associated with deeper sedation and higher satisfaction among both patient and surgeon.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7438,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of clinical and experimental urology\",\"volume\":\"11 2\",\"pages\":\"160-167\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10165230/pdf/ajceu0011-0160.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of clinical and experimental urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of clinical and experimental urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:鉴于双j支架置换术中联合治疗可提供更好的镇静效果,且缺乏对异丙酚、右美托咪定和咪达唑仑在该手术中的镇静作用的研究。本研究旨在比较异丙酚、右美托咪定和咪达唑仑静脉镇静在双j输尿管支架取出中的效果。方法:本双盲随机临床试验于2021年9月至11月在伊朗伊斯法罕Alzahra医院进行了120例18-72岁的双j输尿管支架置入术。患者随机分为3组。第一组用生理盐水滴定异丙酚,负荷剂量0.5 mg/kg,维持剂量1.5 ~ 2.5 mg/kg/h。第二组用生理盐水滴定右美托咪定,在10分钟内以1µg/kg的剂量输注,然后以0.45 ~ 0.55µg/kg的剂量继续输注。第三组咪达唑仑滴注负荷剂量0.05 mg/kg,维持剂量0.05 mg/kg/h。各组均输注芬太尼50 mg。如果患者没有达到预期的镇静水平,三组均输注10mg氯胺酮作为抢救镇静剂,如果需要,所有组均重复输注。结果:本研究共纳入120例行双j输尿管支架取出术的患者。咪达唑仑、右美托咪定、异丙酚的镇静效果比较,三组间差异均有统计学意义,且咪达唑仑组镇静效果更高(P=0.018)。三组间,异丙酚组收缩压和平均动脉压均显著低于对照组(P=0.002)。右美托咪定组在手术和恢复期间心率均显著降低(PP值=0.84)。组间比较,咪达唑仑组的外科医生满意度平均分显著高于对照组(p值=0.039)。结论:根据本研究,咪达唑仑优于其他两组,并且与更深的镇静和更高的患者和外科医生满意度相关。
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 intravenous sedation with propofol, dexmedetomidine and midazolam in double-J ureteral stent removal.

Background: According to the favorable effects of combination therapy to provide better sedation during double-j stent removal and lack of studies investigating the sedative effect of propofol, dexmedetomidine, and midazolam during this procedure. This study aimed to compare the effects of intravenous sedation with propofol, dexmedetomidine and midazolam in double-J ureteral stent removal.

Methods: This double-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted on 120 patients aged 18-72 who underwent double-J ureteral stent removal in Alzahra hospital, Isfahan, Iran from September to November 2021. Patients were randomly divided into 3 groups. In the first group, propofol was titrated with normal saline and was infused with a loading dose of 0.5 mg/kg and a maintenance dose of 1.5-2.5 mg/kg/h. In the second group, Dexmedetomidine was titrated with normal saline and was infused at a dose of 1 µg/kg within 10 min and then continued at 0.45-0.55 µg/kg. In third group, midazolam was titrated was infused with a loading dose of 0.05 mg/kg and a maintenance dose of 0.05 mg/kg/h. 50 mg of fentanyl was also infused in all the groups. If the patients did not reach the desired sedation level, 10 mg ketamine was infused as a rescue sedative agent for all three groups and repeated if needed in all groups.

Results: The current study was conducted on 120 patients who underwent double-J ureteral stent removal. The comparison of the sedative effect of midazolam, dexmedetomidine, and propofol showed significant differences among the three groups and was higher in the midazolam group (P=0.018). Between the three groups systolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure was significantly lower in the propofol group (P=0.002). Heart rate was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group during both surgery and recovery time (P<0.001). There was no significant difference among the groups during surgery regarding oxygen saturation (P value =0.84). The intergroup comparison indicates that the mean score of surgeon satisfaction is significantly higher in the midazolam group (P-value =0.039).

Conclusion: According to this study midazolam was superior to two other groups and was associated with deeper sedation and higher satisfaction among both patient and surgeon.

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
8.30%
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