右美托咪定与咪达唑仑对无创机械通气危重患者的镇静作用

M. Allam
{"title":"右美托咪定与咪达唑仑对无创机械通气危重患者的镇静作用","authors":"M. Allam","doi":"10.4103/1687-7934.179910","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective a-2 adrenoceptor agonist and eight times more specific than clonidine. It exerts its major sedative and analgesic effect through stimulation of the a-2 adrenoceptor and the locus coeruleus. Its analgesic effect is also produced by direct stimulation of the a-2 adrenoceptor in the spinal cord. The unique sedative effect of dexmedetomidine that mimics natural sleep makes the postsedative delirium after stopping dexmedetomidine very rare. Moreover, even on the sedative score Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS)-1-2, patients can respond easily to verbal command and go back to sleep. The most commonly reported adverse effects are bradycardia and hypotension. Aim of the work This was a comparative prospective double-blind study comparing dexmedetomidine versus midazolam as a sedative agent used in noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and short-term intubation and mechanical ventilation (5 days). Patients and methods In all, 200 patients admitted to King Abd el Aziz Specialist Hospital, Taif, in the ICU with acute hypoxemia with SpO 2 less than 80% were allocated randomly to two groups. All patients in both groups were subjected to NIV for 3 days and if this failed (persistent hypoxemia, became hemodynamically unstable, or showed marked tracheal secretion), intubation and mechanical ventilation was considered for 5 days. Group A included 100 patients who received midazolam as a sedative agent, whereas group B included 100 patients who received dexmedetomidine as a sedative agent. The number of patients who responded to NIV in both groups was recorded and the number of patients who were extubated and weaned from mechanical ventilation in 5 days in both groups was also recorded together with the complications from sedation. Results There was a significant increase in the number of patients who responded to NIV in group B compared with group A. Moreover, there was a significant increase in the number of patients extubated and weaned from mechanical ventilation in the 5-day period in group B compared with group A. Conclusion Dexmedetomidine is a safer agent for sedation of critically ill patients with fewer incidences of delirium, and less morbidity and mortality compared with midazolam with the same efficacy.","PeriodicalId":7492,"journal":{"name":"Ain-Shams Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for sedation of critically ill patients on noninvasive mechanical ventilation\",\"authors\":\"M. Allam\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/1687-7934.179910\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective a-2 adrenoceptor agonist and eight times more specific than clonidine. It exerts its major sedative and analgesic effect through stimulation of the a-2 adrenoceptor and the locus coeruleus. Its analgesic effect is also produced by direct stimulation of the a-2 adrenoceptor in the spinal cord. The unique sedative effect of dexmedetomidine that mimics natural sleep makes the postsedative delirium after stopping dexmedetomidine very rare. Moreover, even on the sedative score Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS)-1-2, patients can respond easily to verbal command and go back to sleep. The most commonly reported adverse effects are bradycardia and hypotension. Aim of the work This was a comparative prospective double-blind study comparing dexmedetomidine versus midazolam as a sedative agent used in noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and short-term intubation and mechanical ventilation (5 days). Patients and methods In all, 200 patients admitted to King Abd el Aziz Specialist Hospital, Taif, in the ICU with acute hypoxemia with SpO 2 less than 80% were allocated randomly to two groups. All patients in both groups were subjected to NIV for 3 days and if this failed (persistent hypoxemia, became hemodynamically unstable, or showed marked tracheal secretion), intubation and mechanical ventilation was considered for 5 days. Group A included 100 patients who received midazolam as a sedative agent, whereas group B included 100 patients who received dexmedetomidine as a sedative agent. The number of patients who responded to NIV in both groups was recorded and the number of patients who were extubated and weaned from mechanical ventilation in 5 days in both groups was also recorded together with the complications from sedation. Results There was a significant increase in the number of patients who responded to NIV in group B compared with group A. Moreover, there was a significant increase in the number of patients extubated and weaned from mechanical ventilation in the 5-day period in group B compared with group A. Conclusion Dexmedetomidine is a safer agent for sedation of critically ill patients with fewer incidences of delirium, and less morbidity and mortality compared with midazolam with the same efficacy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ain-Shams Journal of Anaesthesiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ain-Shams Journal of Anaesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/1687-7934.179910\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ain-Shams Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/1687-7934.179910","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

右美托咪定是一种高选择性的a-2肾上腺素能受体激动剂,其特异性是可乐定的8倍。它主要通过刺激a-2肾上腺素受体和蓝斑来发挥镇静和镇痛作用。它的镇痛作用也是通过直接刺激脊髓中的a-2肾上腺素受体产生的。右美托咪定模拟自然睡眠的独特镇静作用,使得停用右美托咪定后的镇静后谵妄非常罕见。此外,即使在镇静评分里士满激动镇静量表(RASS)-1-2中,患者也能很容易地对口头命令做出反应并返回睡眠。最常见的不良反应是心动过缓和低血压。这是一项比较前瞻性双盲研究,比较右美托咪定与咪达唑仑作为镇静剂在无创通气(NIV)和短期插管和机械通气(5天)中的应用。患者和方法本研究将200例急性低氧血症患者随机分为两组,患者在塔伊夫阿卜杜勒-阿齐兹国王专科医院重症监护室住院,SpO值低于80%。两组患者均行无创通气3天,如果无创通气失败(持续低氧血症、血流动力学不稳定或气管分泌物明显),则考虑插管和机械通气5天。A组包括100例使用咪达唑仑作为镇静剂的患者,而B组包括100例使用右美托咪定作为镇静剂的患者。记录两组无创通气应答的患者数量,记录两组5天内拔管和脱离机械通气的患者数量及镇静并发症。结果有一个数量的显著增加患者对和合此外,在B组与a组相比有显著增加的数量在5天从机械通气患者气管切开和断奶时期B组与a组相比结论Dexmedetomidine镇静的安全代理减少危重患者谵妄的发生率,减少发病率和死亡率与咪达唑仑与相同的功效。
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
Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for sedation of critically ill patients on noninvasive mechanical ventilation
Introduction Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective a-2 adrenoceptor agonist and eight times more specific than clonidine. It exerts its major sedative and analgesic effect through stimulation of the a-2 adrenoceptor and the locus coeruleus. Its analgesic effect is also produced by direct stimulation of the a-2 adrenoceptor in the spinal cord. The unique sedative effect of dexmedetomidine that mimics natural sleep makes the postsedative delirium after stopping dexmedetomidine very rare. Moreover, even on the sedative score Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS)-1-2, patients can respond easily to verbal command and go back to sleep. The most commonly reported adverse effects are bradycardia and hypotension. Aim of the work This was a comparative prospective double-blind study comparing dexmedetomidine versus midazolam as a sedative agent used in noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and short-term intubation and mechanical ventilation (5 days). Patients and methods In all, 200 patients admitted to King Abd el Aziz Specialist Hospital, Taif, in the ICU with acute hypoxemia with SpO 2 less than 80% were allocated randomly to two groups. All patients in both groups were subjected to NIV for 3 days and if this failed (persistent hypoxemia, became hemodynamically unstable, or showed marked tracheal secretion), intubation and mechanical ventilation was considered for 5 days. Group A included 100 patients who received midazolam as a sedative agent, whereas group B included 100 patients who received dexmedetomidine as a sedative agent. The number of patients who responded to NIV in both groups was recorded and the number of patients who were extubated and weaned from mechanical ventilation in 5 days in both groups was also recorded together with the complications from sedation. Results There was a significant increase in the number of patients who responded to NIV in group B compared with group A. Moreover, there was a significant increase in the number of patients extubated and weaned from mechanical ventilation in the 5-day period in group B compared with group A. Conclusion Dexmedetomidine is a safer agent for sedation of critically ill patients with fewer incidences of delirium, and less morbidity and mortality compared with midazolam with the same efficacy.
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
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Management of early postoperative hypoxemia: a comparative performance of Hudson face mask with nasal prongs Aprepitant for attenuation of postoperative nausea and vomiting with a decrease in postoperative analgesic needs after laparoscopic surgery Awake orotracheal intubation using fiberoptic bronchoscope versus Airtraq laryngoscope in morbidly obese patients Tramadol versus hyoscine-N-butylbromide as intrapartum analgesics during the first stage of labor Effect of dexmedetomidine infusion on desflurane requirement and perioperative hemodynamic changes during laparoscopic gastric sleeve operations: a study based on entropy
×
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