七氟醚延長鎮(zhèn)靜與靜脈鎮(zhèn)靜在危重患者中的比較:一項隨機對照試驗 ![]() 貴州醫(yī)科大學(xué) 麻醉與心臟電生理課題組 翻譯:楊榮峰 編輯:周倩 審校:曹瑩 揮發(fā)性麻醉劑更常用于重癥監(jiān)護病房 (ICU) 的鎮(zhèn)靜作用。然而,長期使用的證據(jù)仍然很少。因此,我們進行了一項隨機對照試驗,比較七氟醚與靜脈鎮(zhèn)靜,特別關(guān)注其療效和安全性。 方法 在這項前瞻性隨機對照II b期單中心臨床試驗中,需要至少 48 小時鎮(zhèn)靜的 ICU 患者被隨機分組接受七氟醚 (S) 或丙泊酚/咪達唑侖 (P)鎮(zhèn)靜治療。使用里士滿躁動-鎮(zhèn)靜量表監(jiān)測鎮(zhèn)靜質(zhì)量。鎮(zhèn)靜終止后,記錄自主呼吸和拔管的時間、阿片類藥物消耗量、血流動力學(xué)、ICU停留時間和住院時間 (LOS) 以及不良事件。 結(jié)果 79 名患者符合隨機分組條件。七氟醚組 (n = 39) 和異丙酚組 (n = 40) 的鎮(zhèn)靜質(zhì)量相當(dāng)。然而,使用七氟醚會縮短恢復(fù)自主呼吸所需的時間(26 分鐘 vs 375 分鐘,P < 0.001)。丙泊酚鎮(zhèn)靜患者的阿片類藥物需求量較低(瑞芬太尼:400 μg/h vs 500 μg/h,P = 0.007;舒芬太尼:40 μg/h vs 30 μg/h,P = 0.007),而血流動力學(xué)、LOS 及不良事件發(fā)生率沒有差異。 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ICU 患者使用七氟醚鎮(zhèn)靜超過 48 小時可能會更快恢復(fù)自主呼吸,而鎮(zhèn)靜質(zhì)量與丙泊酚鎮(zhèn)靜方案相當(dāng)。七氟醚對于此類患者群體的長期鎮(zhèn)靜可能被認為是安全的,同時與異丙酚相比并不劣勢。 原始文獻:Jens, Soukup,Peter, Michel,Annett, Christel et al. Prolonged sedation with sevoflurane in comparison to intravenous sedation in critically ill patients - A randomized controlled trial.[J] .J Crit Care, 2023, 74: 0. Prolonged sedation with sevoflurane in comparison to intravenous sedation in critically ill patients – A randomized controlled trial Background Volatile anesthetics are used more commonly for sedation in the intensive-care-unit (ICU). However, evidence for long-term use remains low. We therefore conducted a randomized-controlled trial comparing sevoflurane with intravenous sedation with particular focus on efficacy and safety. Methods In this prospective, randomized-controlled phase-IIb monocentric clinical-trial ICU patients requiring at least 48 h of sedation were randomized to receive sevoflurane (S) or propofol/midazolam (P). Sedation quality was monitored using the Richmond-Agitation-Sedation-Scale. Following termination of sedation, the time to spontaneous breathing and extubation, opioid consumption, hemodynamics, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS) and adverse events were recorded. Results 79 patients were eligible to randomization. Sedation quality was comparable between sevoflurane (n =39) and propofol (n = 40). However, the use of sevoflurane lead to a reduction in time to spontaneous breathing (26 min vs. 375 min, P < 0.001). Patients sedated with propofol had lower opioid requirements (remifentanil:400 μg/h vs. 500 μg/h, P = 0.007; sufentanil:40 μg/h vs. 30 μg/h, P = 0.007) while hemodynamics, LOS or the occurrence of adverse events did not differ. Conclusion ICU patients sedated with sevoflurane >48 h may return to spontaneous breathing faster, while the quality of sedation is comparable to a propofol-based sedation regime. Sevoflurane might be considered to be safe for long-term sedation in this patient population, while being non-inferior compared to propofol. ![]() |
|
來自: 罌粟花anesthGH > 《待分類》