摘要
目的:观察丙泊酚、咪达唑仑及丙泊酚+咪达唑仑用于膀胱镜检查的镇静效果并进行比较。方法:将84例患者随机分为四组:丙泊酚组(Ⅰ组)、咪达唑仑组(Ⅱ组)、丙泊酚+咪达唑仑组(Ⅲ组)、对照组(Ⅳ组,不使用药物)。观察记录各组检查前、中、后收缩压(SBP)、舒张压(DBP)、心率(Hr)、脉搏血氧饱和度(SpO2)的变化情况,并比较各组意识恢复时间、定向力恢复时间。结果:Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ组在心血管反应及舒适性等方面均优于Ⅳ组。与检查前相比,Ⅳ组中SBP、DBP、Hr增高,而Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ组中SBP、DBP、Hr均有一过性下降,Ⅰ组的降幅稍大,但苏醒及定向力恢复时间短于Ⅱ、Ⅲ组;Ⅱ组与Ⅰ、Ⅲ组相比,苏醒及定向力恢复时间延长。结论:在膀胱镜检查中,应用丙泊酚+咪达唑仑可以使患者镇静、舒适而且无明显不良反应。
Objective: To observe and compare the sedation effect of propofol,midazolam,and propofol plus midazolam in cystoscopy. Methods: Divide 84 patients into 4 groups at random: group of propofol(GroupⅠ), midazolam(GroupⅡ), propofol plus midazolam(GroupⅢ )and the control group(GroupⅣ,using no drugs ).Observe and record the changes in SBP, DBP, Hr and SpO_2 of each group before,during and after the examination, and compare the time needed for conscious regaining and the restoration of the ability of orientation of each group. Results: GroupⅠ、Ⅱ and Ⅲ were better in cardiovascular reactions and comfortableness than Group Ⅳ. Compared to those of pre-examination SBP, DBP and Hr rose in Group Ⅳ,while those of the other three groups fell briefly, with a bigger extent in GroupⅠand a shorter time needed for conscious regaining and the restoration of the ability of orientation; and a prolonged time needed for conscious regaining and the restoration of the ability of orientation of GroupⅡ compared with GroupⅠand Ⅲ. Conclusion: Using propofol plus midazolam in cystoscopy made patient sedate and comfortable with no obvious adverse reaction.
出处
《江苏大学学报（医学版）》
CAS
2005年第3期235-236,238,共3页
Journal of Jiangsu University：Medicine Edition
