{"title":"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]。","authors":"R Dertwinkel, 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":"{\"title\":\"[Continuous sedation for regional anesthesia with propofol (Disoprivan) and midazolam (Dormicum). A comparative study].\",\"authors\":\"R Dertwinkel, 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}","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}
[Continuous sedation for regional anesthesia with propofol (Disoprivan) and midazolam (Dormicum). A comparative study].
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.