|本期目录/Table of Contents|

[1]曾振横,毛沙群.七氟烷或丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼用于小儿全身麻醉的效果比较[J].慢性病学杂志,2016,(05):494-497.
　ZENG Zhen-heng,MAO Sha-qun.Effective comparison of sevoflurane and propofol combined with remifentanil for pediatric general anesthesia[J].,2016,(05):494-497.
点击复制

七氟烷或丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼用于小儿全身麻醉的效果比较(PDF)

《慢性病学杂志》[ISSN:1674-8166/CN:11-5900/R]

卷:
期数:
2016年05期
页码:
494-497
栏目:
论著
出版日期:
2016-07-26

文章信息/Info

Title:
Effective comparison of sevoflurane and propofol combined with remifentanil for pediatric general anesthesia
作者:
曾振横;  毛沙群
广州市番禺区何贤纪念医院，广州511400
Author(s):
ZENG Zhen-heng;  MAO Sha-qun
He Xian Memorial Hospital, Guangzhou Panyu District, Guangzhou, Guangdong 511400, China Corresponding author:ZENG Zhen-heng, E-mail: zengzhenheng0516@163.com
关键词:
七氟烷; 丙泊酚; 瑞芬太尼; 小儿; 全身麻醉; 血流动力学; 并发症
Keywords:
Sevoflurane;  Propofol;  Remifentanil;  Pediatric;  General anesthesia;  Hemodynamic;  Complications
分类号:
R614
DOI:
-
摘要:
目的比较两种全身麻醉方式（七氟烷复合瑞芬太尼与丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼） 在小儿全身麻醉的应 用效果差异。方法选择行择期全身麻醉手术的患儿80 例，随机分为A、B 两组，各40 例。A 组采用七 氟烷吸入复合瑞芬太尼靶控输注麻醉，B 组采用丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼靶控输注麻醉，A、B 两组均采用经 喉罩全身麻醉并在听觉诱发电位指数监测指导下进行。比较两组患儿在进入手术室诱导前（T1）、插入喉 罩前（T2）、插入喉罩时（T3）、插入喉罩后（T4）、切皮时（T5）、手术15 min 时（T6）、手术30 min 时（T7）、手术1 h （T8）、手术结束时（T9） 及出手术室时（T10） 共10 个时间段的心率（HR）、收缩 压（SBP）、舒张压（DBP）、平均动脉压（MAP），并比较两组患儿停止麻醉至拔除喉罩的时间及术后并 发症发生率的比例差异。结果两组患儿的平均年龄、平均身高及体质量、性别差异、手术类型比例等差 异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。而两组的HR、SBP、DBP、MAP 在T1、T2、T3、T4、T5 等5 个时间点上 差异无统计计学意义（P>0.05），而T6~T10 等5 个时间点上差异有统计学意义（均P<0.05）。A、B 两组 拔除喉罩时间无明显差异[ （12.6 ± 4.6） vs. （13.8 ± 5.2） min， P>0.05]， 而A 组术后并发症的发生率 (27.50%)低于B 组(50.00%)，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论七氟烷复合瑞芬太尼麻醉方式较丙泊酚 复合瑞芬太尼用于小儿全身麻醉具有更稳定的术中血流动力学，术后并发症的发生率更低的优势。
Abstract:
Objective To compare application results of two methods of general anesthesia (sevoflurane and remifentanil vs. propofol and remifentanil) in pediatric anesthesia. Methods A total of pediatric patients undergoing elective general anesthesia were randomly divided into A and B groups. Group A was given sevoflurane inhalation remifentanil TCI anesthesia; group B was given propofol combined with remifentanil TCI anesthesia fentanyl. Both groups were adopted by the laryngeal mask anesthesia and auditory evoked potential index monitoring under the guidance. Heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 10 periods, before entering the operating room before induction (T1), insert the laryngeal mask (T2), when you insert a laryngeal mask (T3), insert the laryngeal mask (T4), when the incision (T5), when surgery 15 min ( T6), when surgery 30 min (T7), surgery 1 hour (T8), at the end of surgery (T9) and the operating room (T10), in the two groups were compared. The times to stop the anesthesia to remove the laryngeal mask and the incidence of postoperative complications in the two groups were compared. Results There were nosignificant differences in the average age, the average height and weight, gender, type of surgery proportion between the two groups of children. There were no significant differences of HR, SBP, DBP, MAP at T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 between the two groups, but they were significantly different at T6- T10. The difference of the times to stop the anesthesia to remove the laryngeal mask of the two groups wasn’t significant [(12.6± 4.6) vs. (13.8± 5.2)min, P<0.05]; postoperative complications in group A (27.50%) were less than those in group B (50.00%). Conclusions Compared with propofol and remifentanil anesthesia, sevoflurane and remifentanil anesthesia for children has advantages of a more stable intraoperative hemodynamics and the lower the incidence of postoperative complications.

参考文献/References:

[1] Breuer T, Maes K, Rossaint R,et al. Sevoflurane exposure prevents diaphragmatic oxidative stress during mechanical ven? tilation but reduces force and affects protein metabolism even during spontaneous breathing in a rat model [J]. Anesth Analg, 2015, 121(1):73-80.
[2] Das W, Bhattacharya S, Ghosh S, et al. Comparison between general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia in attenuation of stress response in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized pro? spective trial [J]. Saudi J Anaesth, 2015,9(2):184-188.
[3] Devroe S, Van De Velde M, Rex S. General anaesthesia for caesarean section [J]. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol, 2015,28(3): 240-246.
[4] Goswami U, Babbar S, Tiwari S. Comparative evaluation of the effects of propofol and sevoflurane on cognitive function and memory in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised prospective study [J]. Indian J Anaesth, 2015,59 (3):150-155.
[5] Jung YS, Han YR, Choi ES, et al. The optimal anesthetic depth for interventional neuroradiology: comparisons between light anesthesia and deep anesthesia [J]. Korean J Anesthesiol, 2015,68(2):148-152.
[6] Kunze N, Weigel C, Vautz W, et al. Multi-capillary columnion mobility spectrometry (MCC- IMS) as a new method for the quantification of occupational exposure to sevoflurane in an? aesthesia workplaces: an observational feasibility study [J]. J Occup Med Toxicol, 2015,10:12.
[7] Luo C, Yuan D, Zhao W, et al. Sevoflurane ameliorates intes? tinal ischemia- reperfusion- induced lung injury by inhibiting the synergistic action between mast cell activation and oxida? tive stress [J]. Mol Med Rep, 2015,12(1):1082-1091.
[8] Park JH, Lim BG, Kim H, et al. Comparison of Surgical Pleth Index- guided Analgesia with Conventional Analgesia Practic? es in Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial [J]. Anesthesi? ology, 2015,122(6):1280-1287.
[9] Picard P, Tramer MR. Prevention of pain on injection with pro? pofol: a quantitative systematic review [J]. Anesth Analg, 2000,90(4):963-969.
[10] Welliver M, Welliver DD. Sevoflurane cost comparisons ques? tioned [J]. AANA J,2014,82(6):415-416.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
基金资助：广东省中医药局基金资助项目（20151034） 作者简介：曾振横，大学本科，主治医师，研究方向：麻醉学 通信作者：曾振横，E-mail: zengzhenheng0516@163.com
更新日期/Last Update: 2016-07-27