氯胺酮-异丙酚(酮酚)与咪达唑仑-芬太尼在急诊科的程序性镇静和镇痛的比较:一项开放标签随机对照研究

IF 0.2 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY Indian Anaesthetists Forum Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI:10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_170_21
KCharishma Begum, K. Gnanadurai, Chandrappa Sreekanth, D. Pushpa Latha
{"title":"氯胺酮-异丙酚(酮酚)与咪达唑仑-芬太尼在急诊科的程序性镇静和镇痛的比较:一项开放标签随机对照研究","authors":"KCharishma Begum, K. Gnanadurai, Chandrappa Sreekanth, D. Pushpa Latha","doi":"10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_170_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Various anesthetic drugs are used for procedures conducted outside the operation theater. Very few studies are done in the emergency department to compare the combination of ketamine and propofol (ketofol) versus midazolam–fentanyl for procedural sedation and analgesia, thus we conducted this study to compare these drug combinations in terms of analgesic and sedation efficacy in the emergency department. Materials and Methods: A prospective, open-label, randomized, comparative study was conducted on 60 patients, who were randomly assigned to the ketofol and midazolam–fentanyl groups (30 each) to compare these drugs in terms of sedation efficacy using modified Ramsay sedation score, pain scores using Visual Analog Scale, and alteration of hemodynamic, adverse effects such as respiratory distress and nausea. The mean pain score before and after the study was compared using paired t-test, and the difference between the two groups was assessed using Student's t-test. Chi-square test and Fisher's exact test were employed to compare the distribution of qualitative data. Results: Our study showed that ketofol provides better analgesia as compared to the midazolam–fentanyl group because reduction in Visual Analog Scale scores was 1.27 ± 1.52 (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) in the ketofol group as compared to 3.07 ± 1.25 (mean ± SD) in the midazolam–fentanyl group. Ketofol 4.47±0.73 (mean ± SD) had a better modified Ramsay sedation score when compared to midazolam–fentanyl 3.47±0.90 (mean ± SD). There was reduction in systolic (from 119 ± 18.4 to 113.3 ± 18.81 mmHg) and diastolic blood pressure (from 72 ± 9.61 to 69.67 ± 10.33 mmHg) in the midazolam–fentanyl group during and after the procedure in comparison to the ketofol group where none had hypotension. Conclusion: Results concluded that ketamine–propofol (ketofol) combination is safe and better in providing adequate analgesia and sedation than midazolam and fentanyl combination in the emergency room.","PeriodicalId":42359,"journal":{"name":"Indian Anaesthetists Forum","volume":"23 1","pages":"131 - 137"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of ketamine–propofol (ketofol) versus midazolam–fentanyl for procedural sedation and analgesia in emergency care department: An open-label randomized controlled study\",\"authors\":\"KCharishma Begum, K. Gnanadurai, Chandrappa Sreekanth, D. Pushpa Latha\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_170_21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Various anesthetic drugs are used for procedures conducted outside the operation theater. Very few studies are done in the emergency department to compare the combination of ketamine and propofol (ketofol) versus midazolam–fentanyl for procedural sedation and analgesia, thus we conducted this study to compare these drug combinations in terms of analgesic and sedation efficacy in the emergency department. Materials and Methods: A prospective, open-label, randomized, comparative study was conducted on 60 patients, who were randomly assigned to the ketofol and midazolam–fentanyl groups (30 each) to compare these drugs in terms of sedation efficacy using modified Ramsay sedation score, pain scores using Visual Analog Scale, and alteration of hemodynamic, adverse effects such as respiratory distress and nausea. The mean pain score before and after the study was compared using paired t-test, and the difference between the two groups was assessed using Student's t-test. Chi-square test and Fisher's exact test were employed to compare the distribution of qualitative data. Results: Our study showed that ketofol provides better analgesia as compared to the midazolam–fentanyl group because reduction in Visual Analog Scale scores was 1.27 ± 1.52 (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) in the ketofol group as compared to 3.07 ± 1.25 (mean ± SD) in the midazolam–fentanyl group. Ketofol 4.47±0.73 (mean ± SD) had a better modified Ramsay sedation score when compared to midazolam–fentanyl 3.47±0.90 (mean ± SD). There was reduction in systolic (from 119 ± 18.4 to 113.3 ± 18.81 mmHg) and diastolic blood pressure (from 72 ± 9.61 to 69.67 ± 10.33 mmHg) in the midazolam–fentanyl group during and after the procedure in comparison to the ketofol group where none had hypotension. Conclusion: Results concluded that ketamine–propofol (ketofol) combination is safe and better in providing adequate analgesia and sedation than midazolam and fentanyl combination in the emergency room.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42359,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Anaesthetists Forum\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"131 - 137\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Anaesthetists Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_170_21\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Anaesthetists Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_170_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在手术室外进行的手术使用各种麻醉药物。在急诊科,很少有研究比较氯胺酮和丙泊酚(酮福醇)与咪唑安定-芬太尼的组合用于手术镇静和镇痛,因此我们进行了这项研究,以比较这些药物组合在急诊科的镇痛和镇静效果。材料和方法:对60名患者进行了一项前瞻性、开放标签、随机的比较研究,这些患者被随机分配到酮康唑和咪达唑仑-芬太尼组(各30名),使用改良的拉姆齐镇静评分、使用视觉模拟量表的疼痛评分和血液动力学改变来比较这些药物的镇静效果,副作用,如呼吸窘迫和恶心。使用配对t检验比较研究前后的平均疼痛评分,并使用Student t检验评估两组之间的差异。采用卡方检验和Fisher精确检验对定性数据的分布进行比较。结果:我们的研究表明,与咪达唑仑-芬太尼组相比,酮醇提供了更好的镇痛效果,因为酮醇组的视觉模拟量表评分降低了1.27±1.52(平均值±标准差[SD]),而咪达唑伦-芬太尼组为3.07±1.25(平均值?SD)。与咪达唑仑-芬太尼3.47±0.90(平均值±SD)相比,酮醇4.47±0.73(平均值?SD)具有更好的改良拉姆齐镇静评分。术中和术后,咪达唑仑-芬太尼组的收缩压(从119±18.4降至113.3±18.81 mmHg)和舒张压(从72±9.61降至69.67±10.33 mmHg)均低于酮醇组(酮醇组无低血压)。结论:氯胺酮-丙泊酚(酮醇)联合用药在急诊室提供足够的镇痛和镇静效果优于咪达唑仑和芬太尼联合用药。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of ketamine–propofol (ketofol) versus midazolam–fentanyl for procedural sedation and analgesia in emergency care department: An open-label randomized controlled study
Background: Various anesthetic drugs are used for procedures conducted outside the operation theater. Very few studies are done in the emergency department to compare the combination of ketamine and propofol (ketofol) versus midazolam–fentanyl for procedural sedation and analgesia, thus we conducted this study to compare these drug combinations in terms of analgesic and sedation efficacy in the emergency department. Materials and Methods: A prospective, open-label, randomized, comparative study was conducted on 60 patients, who were randomly assigned to the ketofol and midazolam–fentanyl groups (30 each) to compare these drugs in terms of sedation efficacy using modified Ramsay sedation score, pain scores using Visual Analog Scale, and alteration of hemodynamic, adverse effects such as respiratory distress and nausea. The mean pain score before and after the study was compared using paired t-test, and the difference between the two groups was assessed using Student's t-test. Chi-square test and Fisher's exact test were employed to compare the distribution of qualitative data. Results: Our study showed that ketofol provides better analgesia as compared to the midazolam–fentanyl group because reduction in Visual Analog Scale scores was 1.27 ± 1.52 (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) in the ketofol group as compared to 3.07 ± 1.25 (mean ± SD) in the midazolam–fentanyl group. Ketofol 4.47±0.73 (mean ± SD) had a better modified Ramsay sedation score when compared to midazolam–fentanyl 3.47±0.90 (mean ± SD). There was reduction in systolic (from 119 ± 18.4 to 113.3 ± 18.81 mmHg) and diastolic blood pressure (from 72 ± 9.61 to 69.67 ± 10.33 mmHg) in the midazolam–fentanyl group during and after the procedure in comparison to the ketofol group where none had hypotension. Conclusion: Results concluded that ketamine–propofol (ketofol) combination is safe and better in providing adequate analgesia and sedation than midazolam and fentanyl combination in the emergency room.
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
Indian Anaesthetists Forum
Indian Anaesthetists Forum ANESTHESIOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Cardiovascular complications in coronavirus disease-2019 patients Refractory hypokalemia in intensive care unit: Efforts in vain Evaluation of effect of dexamethasone and bicarbonate as adjuvants to intracuff lignocaine on endotracheal tube tolerance during emergence and incidence of postoperative cough and sore throat Is it popliteal artery? Is it popliteal vein? No it is persistent sciatic vein Mortality predictors during the third wave of COVID-19 pandemic: A multicentric retrospective analysis from tertiary care centers of Western India
×
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