您的位置:山东大学 -> 科技期刊社 -> 《山东大学学报(医学版)》

山东大学学报(医学版)

• 论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

不同麻醉监测指标调控异丙酚麻醉的比较

王焕亮, 孙宝柱, 杜洪玫, 周长青, 张丽   

  1. 山东大学齐鲁医院麻醉科, 山东 济南 250012
  • 收稿日期:2005-09-14 修回日期:1900-01-01 出版日期:2006-05-24 发布日期:2006-05-24
  • 通讯作者: 王焕亮

Controlling the depth of propofol anesthesia using the bispectral indexand the systolic blood pressure

WANG Huan-liang, SUN Bao-zhu,DU Hong-mei, ZHOU Chang-qing, ZHANG Li   

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan 250012, Shandong, China
  • Received:2005-09-14 Revised:1900-01-01 Online:2006-05-24 Published:2006-05-24
  • Contact: WANG Huan-liang

摘要: 比较脑电双频指数(BIS)和收缩压(SBP)调控异丙酚麻醉深度的临床效果。方法:选择美国麻醉医师协会身体状况分级(SAS)Ⅰ级子宫肌瘤患者40例,随机分为BIS(B)组和SBP(S)组,分别以BIS和SBP作为麻醉深度指标调控异丙酚输注速度,比较两组患者麻醉维持期BIS和SBP与设定目标值的一致性,患者苏醒时间和异丙酚用量。结果:B组BIS值维持在控制目标范围50±10内的时间点数占总记录时间点(89±10)%,显著高于S组(49±29)% (P<0.001);BIS<40的发生率B组(9±10)%、S组(44±31)%,BIS>60的发生率B组(2±2)%、S组(7±16)% (P<0.01)。S组控制在目标范围内SBP时间点数占总时间点(34±31)%,而B组则为(51±27)% (P<0.05)。两组低血压的发生率B组为(41±33) %,S组(64±31)%;高血压发生率B组(7±11)%、S组(1±2)% (P<0.05)。B组患者自主呼吸恢复时间、睁眼时间和拔管时间均显著低于S组(P<0.05),异丙酚用量也少于S组(P<0.05)。结论:与传统的SBP调节麻醉相比,BIS指导异丙酚麻醉更易于维持患者麻醉深度和血液动力学的稳定。

Abstract: To compare the effect of the bispectral index (BIS) and the systolic blood pressure (SBP) on controlling the depth of propofol anesthesia. Methods: BIS (the B group) or SBP (the S group) at random was used to titrate the propofol anesthesia in 40 patients scheduled for hysterectomy. The consistency of the value of BIS and SBP to the set control value, the consumption of propofol and the emergence time were compared. Results: About (89 ±10) % of the measured BIS time points in group B, and (49±29) % in group S were maintained in the target field (50±10), (P<0.001). Significantly higher incidence of BIS levels < 40 was recorded in the group S than in the group B [(44±31)% vs (9±10)%] and that of BIS> 60 was recorded in the group S than in the group B[(7±16) % vs (2±2) %] (P<0.01). Although SBP was the controlled variable in the group S, adequate hemodynamic stability (within the 15mmHg range around baseline) occurred more frequently in the group B (51±27) % in comparison with group S (34±31)%, (P< 0.05). The incidence of too low SBP, [(41±33)% in the group B vs (64±31)% in the group S] and the incidence of too high SBP, [(7±11)% in the group B vs (1±2)% in the group S] were both significantly different between the two groups (P<0.05). Recovery was quickd the consumptions of propofol were lower in the group B than those in the group S (P<0.05). Conclusion: As a controlled variable of anesthesia, BIS has more advantages in keeping the stability of anesthesia and hemodynamics than SBP.

Key words: Electromyography, The systolic blood pressure, Anesthetics, intravenous

No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!