丙泊酚氯胺酮和丙泊酚芬太尼在扩张刮除术患者中的疗效和血流动力学稳定性评价

Jinal Manek
{"title":"丙泊酚氯胺酮和丙泊酚芬太尼在扩张刮除术患者中的疗效和血流动力学稳定性评价","authors":"Jinal Manek","doi":"10.26611/10151925","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: To evaluate and compare the efficacy and hemodynamic stability of ketamine / fentanyl along with propofol and also assess recovery profile, post-operative analgesia and complications in patients undergoing Dilatation and Curettage (DandC). Method: Total 100 patients of ASA grade I and II, age between 18-55 years were enrolled and divided into two equal groups with adjuvant drugs in group PK- ketamine (0.75mg/kg IV) and in group PF-fentanyl (2ug/kg IV). Both groups received induction dose of Propofol- 2-2.5 mg/kg. Depth of sedation maintained with 0.5 mg/kg boluses of Inj.Propofol and assessed with Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS). The total dose of propofol was noted in both the groups. Intraoperative and postop vital parameters and complications were compared. Visual Analog Scale(VAS) was recorded and if VAS Score >6, then patients received Inj.Paracetamol 15mg/kg IV as rescue analgesia. The recovery was assessed by Modified Aldrete Score (MAS). The time from completion of procedure to reach MAS of 9-10 was noted. Results: The hemodynamics was better with ketamine than fentanyl group. The total dose of propofol requirement, intraoperative and postop complications, and VAS scores were higher in group PF than in group PK, thus more patients required rescue analgesia in fentanyl group as compared to ketamine group. The recovery was delayed in ketamine group as compared to fentanyl (higher MAS and prolonged time to reach MAS>9). Conclusion: Ketamine (0.75 mg/kg) provides better perioperative hemodynamic stability with good analgesia and fewer complications as compared to Fentanyl (2ug/kg) in patients undergoing DandC.","PeriodicalId":18595,"journal":{"name":"MedPulse International Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of efficacy and hemodynamic stability of propofol- ketamine and propofolfentanyl in patients undergoing dilatation and curettage\",\"authors\":\"Jinal Manek\",\"doi\":\"10.26611/10151925\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: To evaluate and compare the efficacy and hemodynamic stability of ketamine / fentanyl along with propofol and also assess recovery profile, post-operative analgesia and complications in patients undergoing Dilatation and Curettage (DandC). Method: Total 100 patients of ASA grade I and II, age between 18-55 years were enrolled and divided into two equal groups with adjuvant drugs in group PK- ketamine (0.75mg/kg IV) and in group PF-fentanyl (2ug/kg IV). Both groups received induction dose of Propofol- 2-2.5 mg/kg. Depth of sedation maintained with 0.5 mg/kg boluses of Inj.Propofol and assessed with Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS). The total dose of propofol was noted in both the groups. Intraoperative and postop vital parameters and complications were compared. Visual Analog Scale(VAS) was recorded and if VAS Score >6, then patients received Inj.Paracetamol 15mg/kg IV as rescue analgesia. The recovery was assessed by Modified Aldrete Score (MAS). The time from completion of procedure to reach MAS of 9-10 was noted. Results: The hemodynamics was better with ketamine than fentanyl group. The total dose of propofol requirement, intraoperative and postop complications, and VAS scores were higher in group PF than in group PK, thus more patients required rescue analgesia in fentanyl group as compared to ketamine group. The recovery was delayed in ketamine group as compared to fentanyl (higher MAS and prolonged time to reach MAS>9). Conclusion: Ketamine (0.75 mg/kg) provides better perioperative hemodynamic stability with good analgesia and fewer complications as compared to Fentanyl (2ug/kg) in patients undergoing DandC.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18595,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MedPulse International Journal of Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MedPulse International Journal of Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26611/10151925\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MedPulse International Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26611/10151925","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:评估和比较氯胺酮/芬太尼联合异丙酚的疗效和血流动力学稳定性,并评估扩张刮刮术(DandC)患者的恢复情况、术后镇痛和并发症。方法:选取ASAⅰ、ⅱ级患者100例,年龄18 ~ 55岁,随机分为两组,分别给予辅助用药PK-氯胺酮组(0.75mg/kg IV)和sf -芬太尼组(2ug/kg IV),两组均给予诱导剂量异丙酚-2 ~ 2.5 mg/kg。以0.5 mg/kg注射量维持镇静深度。异丙酚和Ramsay镇静评分(RSS)评估。记录两组异丙酚的总剂量。比较术中、术后生命参数及并发症。记录视觉模拟评分(VAS),如果VAS评分大于6分,则给予静脉注射。对乙酰氨基酚15mg/kg IV作为抢救镇痛。采用改良Aldrete评分(MAS)评价恢复情况。注意到从完成程序到达到MAS 9-10的时间。结果:氯胺酮组血流动力学优于芬太尼组。PF组丙泊酚需用总剂量、术中术后并发症、VAS评分均高于PK组,芬太尼组需要抢救性镇痛的患者多于氯胺酮组。与芬太尼相比,氯胺酮组恢复延迟(MAS较高,达到MAS>9的时间延长)。结论:与芬太尼(2ug/kg)相比,氯胺酮(0.75 mg/kg)可提供更好的围手术期血流动力学稳定性,镇痛效果好,并发症少。
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
Evaluation of efficacy and hemodynamic stability of propofol- ketamine and propofolfentanyl in patients undergoing dilatation and curettage
Background: To evaluate and compare the efficacy and hemodynamic stability of ketamine / fentanyl along with propofol and also assess recovery profile, post-operative analgesia and complications in patients undergoing Dilatation and Curettage (DandC). Method: Total 100 patients of ASA grade I and II, age between 18-55 years were enrolled and divided into two equal groups with adjuvant drugs in group PK- ketamine (0.75mg/kg IV) and in group PF-fentanyl (2ug/kg IV). Both groups received induction dose of Propofol- 2-2.5 mg/kg. Depth of sedation maintained with 0.5 mg/kg boluses of Inj.Propofol and assessed with Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS). The total dose of propofol was noted in both the groups. Intraoperative and postop vital parameters and complications were compared. Visual Analog Scale(VAS) was recorded and if VAS Score >6, then patients received Inj.Paracetamol 15mg/kg IV as rescue analgesia. The recovery was assessed by Modified Aldrete Score (MAS). The time from completion of procedure to reach MAS of 9-10 was noted. Results: The hemodynamics was better with ketamine than fentanyl group. The total dose of propofol requirement, intraoperative and postop complications, and VAS scores were higher in group PF than in group PK, thus more patients required rescue analgesia in fentanyl group as compared to ketamine group. The recovery was delayed in ketamine group as compared to fentanyl (higher MAS and prolonged time to reach MAS>9). Conclusion: Ketamine (0.75 mg/kg) provides better perioperative hemodynamic stability with good analgesia and fewer complications as compared to Fentanyl (2ug/kg) in patients undergoing DandC.
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
Study of sedation levels and adverse effects axillary brachial plexus block with magnesium sulphate and bupivacaine Efficacy of intravenous nitroglycerine in attenuation of hemodynamic response to tracheal extubation A comparative study of different types of video laryngoscopes in viewing ease and time of Intubation and laryngoscopic response A comparative study of intrathecal dexmedetomidine and fentanyl as adjuvants to bupivacaine to provide prolonged postoperative analgesia A comparative study of supreme laryngeal mask airway versus laryngeal tube undergoing general anesthesia in short surgical procedures
×
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