[Continuous sedation for regional anesthesia with propofol (Disoprivan) and midazolam (Dormicum). A comparative study].

IF 1.9 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Regional-Anaesthesie Pub Date : 1988-10-01
R Dertwinkel, H Nolte
{"title":"[Continuous sedation for regional anesthesia with propofol (Disoprivan) and midazolam (Dormicum). A comparative study].","authors":"R Dertwinkel,&nbsp;H Nolte","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Unlabelled: </strong>Propofol was compared to midazolam with regard to its quality as a sedative in regional anesthesia. 81 patients undergoing varicose-vein stripping under epidural anesthesia were divided into two groups: 39 were given propofol and 42 were given midazolam. Both groups were then subdivided into 3 subgroups. 30 min after epidural block, a bolus of propofol 1 mg/kg or midazolam 0.03 mg/kg was given followed by infusion of equipotent solutions: propofol 1.0, 1.5, or 2.0 mg/kg/h or midazolam 0.03, 0.045, 0.06 mg/kg/h. Continuous registration of blood pressure, respiratory rate, and end-expiratory pCO2 was carried out and blood gas analysis was performed every 30 min.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Clinically unimportant changes of circulatory and respiratory parameters were seen. Blood gas analyses showed hypercapnia greater than 50 mmHg in some patients. Brief apnea occurred after bolus propofol in 7.7% of cases and pain during injection in 66.6%. Restlessness: propofol 28.2%, midazolam 9.5%. Upper airway obstruction: propofol 30.8%, midazolam 57.1%. Recovery time after infusion ranged from 130 s with propofol to 26 min with midazolam. Postoperative evaluation included the following questions and responses: Sedation pleasant? propofol 97.5%, midazolam 100%. Sleep during surgery? propofol 94.8%, midazolam 83.5%. Prolonged tiredness? propofol 25.6%, midazolam 69%. Postoperative nausea? propofol 38.5%, midazolam 14.2%. Vomiting? propofol 17.9%, midazolam 11.9%. Our study showed that propofol is highly suitable as a sedative for regional anesthesia in spite of injection pain and frequent postoperative nausea. It is superior to midazolam because of the significantly shorter recovery time, providing improved control-lability and reduced posthypnotic sleep.</p>","PeriodicalId":77604,"journal":{"name":"Regional-Anaesthesie","volume":"11 4","pages":"84-91"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"1988-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional-Anaesthesie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Unlabelled: Propofol was compared to midazolam with regard to its quality as a sedative in regional anesthesia. 81 patients undergoing varicose-vein stripping under epidural anesthesia were divided into two groups: 39 were given propofol and 42 were given midazolam. Both groups were then subdivided into 3 subgroups. 30 min after epidural block, a bolus of propofol 1 mg/kg or midazolam 0.03 mg/kg was given followed by infusion of equipotent solutions: propofol 1.0, 1.5, or 2.0 mg/kg/h or midazolam 0.03, 0.045, 0.06 mg/kg/h. Continuous registration of blood pressure, respiratory rate, and end-expiratory pCO2 was carried out and blood gas analysis was performed every 30 min.

Results: Clinically unimportant changes of circulatory and respiratory parameters were seen. Blood gas analyses showed hypercapnia greater than 50 mmHg in some patients. Brief apnea occurred after bolus propofol in 7.7% of cases and pain during injection in 66.6%. Restlessness: propofol 28.2%, midazolam 9.5%. Upper airway obstruction: propofol 30.8%, midazolam 57.1%. Recovery time after infusion ranged from 130 s with propofol to 26 min with midazolam. Postoperative evaluation included the following questions and responses: Sedation pleasant? propofol 97.5%, midazolam 100%. Sleep during surgery? propofol 94.8%, midazolam 83.5%. Prolonged tiredness? propofol 25.6%, midazolam 69%. Postoperative nausea? propofol 38.5%, midazolam 14.2%. Vomiting? propofol 17.9%, midazolam 11.9%. Our study showed that propofol is highly suitable as a sedative for regional anesthesia in spite of injection pain and frequent postoperative nausea. It is superior to midazolam because of the significantly shorter recovery time, providing improved control-lability and reduced posthypnotic sleep.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
局部麻醉用异丙酚(地非利安)和咪达唑仑(多米康)持续镇静。比较研究]。
未标记:异丙酚与咪达唑仑在区域麻醉中作为镇静剂的质量进行了比较。81例硬膜外麻醉下行静脉曲张剥脱术患者分为两组:39例给予异丙酚,42例给予咪达唑仑。两组再细分为3个亚组。硬膜外阻滞30 min后,给予异丙酚1 mg/kg或咪达唑仑0.03 mg/kg,随后输注等效溶液:异丙酚1.0、1.5或2.0 mg/kg/h或咪达唑仑0.03、0.045、0.06 mg/kg/h。连续记录血压、呼吸频率、呼气末二氧化碳分压(pCO2),每30 min进行一次血气分析。结果:循环、呼吸参数无临床意义。血气分析显示部分患者高碳酸血症大于50mmhg。注射异丙酚后出现短暂呼吸暂停的占7.7%,注射时出现疼痛的占66.6%。躁动:异丙酚28.2%,咪达唑仑9.5%。上呼吸道梗阻:异丙酚30.8%,咪达唑仑57.1%。异丙酚输注后恢复时间为130 s,咪达唑仑输注后恢复时间为26 min。术后评估包括以下问题和回答:镇静是否愉快?异丙酚97.5%咪达唑仑100%手术时睡觉?异丙酚94.8%,咪达唑仑83.5%。长时间疲劳吗?异丙酚25.6%咪达唑仑69%术后恶心吗?异丙酚38.5%咪达唑仑14.2%呕吐吗?异丙酚17.9%咪达唑仑11.9%我们的研究表明,尽管注射疼痛和术后频繁的恶心,异丙酚仍然非常适合作为区域麻醉的镇静剂。它优于咪达唑仑,因为恢复时间明显缩短,提供更好的控制稳定性和减少催眠后睡眠。
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
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
[An epidural spinal abscess as a lethal complication of peridural anesthesia]. [Knotting of a peridural catheter]. [A simple technique for estimating the level of analgesia in regional anesthesia]. [CSE--the combination of spinal and epidural anesthesia]. [Comments on the paper by R. Schürg et al. Maternal and neonatal plasma concentrations of bupivacaine during peridural anesthesia for cesarean section].
×
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