摘要
[目的]主要探讨静脉麻醉不同配伍方式与苏醒期躁动的关系。[方法]选择静脉全麻下行无痛胃镜检查术的患者300例，随机分为三组：丙泊酚＋芬太尼组（PF组）、丙泊酚＋瑞芬太尼组（PR组）、丙泊酚＋舒芬太尼组（PS组），各组均100例。记录用药前、用药后、胃镜退出时平均动脉压（MAP）、脉搏氧饱和度（SpO2），胃镜退出后观察躁动发生情况，并按镇静躁动分级法对其苏醒状况进行评分。[结果]苏醒期躁动的发生率分别为：PR组39％（39/100）、PS组11％（11/100）、PF组17％（17/100）。PR组与 PS组及 PF组相比，躁动发生率均显著增高（P≤0．01），而PS组与PF组相比则无显著差异（P＞0．05）。PR组低氧血症发生率（11％）明显高于PS组（1％）与PF组（2％），差异均有显著性（P＜0．01）。[结论]丙泊酚＋芬太尼组及丙泊酚＋舒芬太尼组苏醒期躁动发生率和低氧血症发生率明显低于丙泊酚＋瑞芬太尼组，为静脉全麻较好配伍方式。
[Objective] To explore the relationship between different combined intravenous anesthesia methods and agitation in recovery period .[Methods]Totally 300 patients undergoing painless gastroscopy un-der intravenous anesthesia were chosen and randomly divided into propofol ＋ fentanyl group （group PF） , propofol＋remifentanil group（group PR） and propofol＋sufentanil group（PS） with 100 patients in each group . Mean arterial pressure （MAP） and pulse oxygen saturation（SpO2 ） before and after administration and at gas-troscope withdrawal were recorded .The incidence of agitation after gastroscope withdrawal was observed .The sedation agitation classification method was used to assess the recovery status .[Results] The incidence of agi-tation of group PR ,group PS and group PF in recovery period were 39% （39/100） ,11% （11/100） and 17%（17/100） ,respectively .Compared with group PS and group PF ,the incidence of agitation in group PR was significantly increased （ P≤0 .01） ,but there was no significant difference between group PS and group PF （ P＆gt;0 .05） .The incidence of hypoxemia in group PR （11% ） was obviously higher than that in group PS （1% ） and group PF（2% ） ,and there was significant difference（ P ＆lt;0 .01） .[Conclusion]The incidence of agitation and hypoxemia in propofol＋fentanyl group and propofol＋ sufentanil group in recovery period were lower than that in propofol＋ remifentanil group ,so it provides a good combined intravenous anesthesia method .
出处
《医学临床研究》
CAS
2013年第11期2103-2105,共3页
Journal of Clinical Research
基金
上海市嘉定区科技发展基金项目（编号：201115）
