[Infusion or repetitive bolus injection? A clinical study of midazolam/fentanyl and diazepam/fentanyl combination anesthesia in neurosurgical operations].

P Mair, N Mutz, E Stroschneider, T J Luger, R Morawetz
{"title":"[Infusion or repetitive bolus injection? A clinical study of midazolam/fentanyl and diazepam/fentanyl combination anesthesia in neurosurgical operations].","authors":"P Mair,&nbsp;N Mutz,&nbsp;E Stroschneider,&nbsp;T J Luger,&nbsp;R Morawetz","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objectives of this study were to compare two narcotic/benzodiazepine combinations given either as continuous infusion or intermittent bolus injections in neurosurgical patients. 24 patients scheduled for elective craniotomy were investigated. They were assigned randomly to four different groups for treatment. Groups 1 and 2 received a combination of midazolam and fentanyl, groups 3 and 4 a combination of diazepam and fentanyl. Anaesthesia was maintained either by continuous infusion (groups 1 and 3) or intermittent bolus injections (groups 2 and 4). At six key intervals cardiovascular variables were compared. Furthermore, total drug dosage requirements were measured and compared. Except for measurement 3 (skin incision), cardiovascular dynamics were not markedly different between bolus and infusion groups. Haemodynamic response to skin incision was less in both bolus groups. Furthermore, the bolus technique revealed a non-significant reduction in total drug dosage requirements in the bolus groups. Our data indicate that for neurosurgical anaesthesia conventional bolus injection of intravenous anaesthetics is superior to continuous infusion with respect to intraoperative haemodynamics. The typically reduced level of pain with short peaks only, characteristic for neurosurgical operations, is one of the factors contributing to these surprising results. Furthermore, the simple method of infusion chosen influences the results decisively. Certain advantages might be achieved by the use of sophisticated pharmacokinetic infusion models. Total drug dosage requirements were reduced in the bolus groups mainly because of the typical anaesthetic requirements of craniotomy, disposing it for bolus technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":7813,"journal":{"name":"Anasthesie, Intensivtherapie, Notfallmedizin","volume":"25 Suppl 1 ","pages":"34-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1990-01-01","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

The objectives of this study were to compare two narcotic/benzodiazepine combinations given either as continuous infusion or intermittent bolus injections in neurosurgical patients. 24 patients scheduled for elective craniotomy were investigated. They were assigned randomly to four different groups for treatment. Groups 1 and 2 received a combination of midazolam and fentanyl, groups 3 and 4 a combination of diazepam and fentanyl. Anaesthesia was maintained either by continuous infusion (groups 1 and 3) or intermittent bolus injections (groups 2 and 4). At six key intervals cardiovascular variables were compared. Furthermore, total drug dosage requirements were measured and compared. Except for measurement 3 (skin incision), cardiovascular dynamics were not markedly different between bolus and infusion groups. Haemodynamic response to skin incision was less in both bolus groups. Furthermore, the bolus technique revealed a non-significant reduction in total drug dosage requirements in the bolus groups. Our data indicate that for neurosurgical anaesthesia conventional bolus injection of intravenous anaesthetics is superior to continuous infusion with respect to intraoperative haemodynamics. The typically reduced level of pain with short peaks only, characteristic for neurosurgical operations, is one of the factors contributing to these surprising results. Furthermore, the simple method of infusion chosen influences the results decisively. Certain advantages might be achieved by the use of sophisticated pharmacokinetic infusion models. Total drug dosage requirements were reduced in the bolus groups mainly because of the typical anaesthetic requirements of craniotomy, disposing it for bolus technique.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
输注还是重复大剂量注射?咪达唑仑/芬太尼与地西泮/芬太尼复合麻醉在神经外科手术中的临床研究[j]。
本研究的目的是比较两种麻醉药/苯二氮卓类药物联合给予神经外科患者连续输注或间歇大剂量注射。对24例择期开颅患者进行了调查。他们被随机分为四组进行治疗。组1、组2联合使用咪达唑仑和芬太尼,组3、组4联合使用地西泮和芬太尼。通过连续输注(1组和3组)或间歇大剂量注射(2组和4组)维持麻醉。在6个关键时间间隔比较心血管变量。此外,还测量和比较了药物总剂量需求。除测量3(皮肤切口)外,各组间心血管动力学无显著差异。两组对皮肤切口的血流动力学反应均较差。此外,丸剂技术显示,在丸剂组中,总药物剂量需求没有显著减少。我们的数据表明,对于神经外科麻醉,传统的静脉麻醉剂大剂量注射在术中血流动力学方面优于连续输注。神经外科手术的特点是,典型的疼痛水平降低,只有短暂的峰值,这是导致这些惊人结果的因素之一。注射方法的选择对注射效果有决定性的影响。使用复杂的药代动力学输注模型可以获得某些优势。丸组总药物用量减少主要是由于开颅术典型的麻醉需求,将其用于丸术。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
[The measurement of extravascular lung water--significant in the follow-up of ARDS?]. [Fat emulsions in parenteral feeding following liver transplantation. I. Effect on the recovery of RES function in the transplant]. [The effect of selective decontamination on nosocomial infections, their causative agents and antibiotic resistance in long-term intubated intensive care patients]. [Hypothermia and polytrauma. A case report (28 degrees C)]. [The present situation and developing trends in intensive medicine].
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1