摘要
目的探讨异丙酚和咪唑安定两种药物在机械通气患者中的镇静效果差异。方法选择2007年1月至2008年5月ICU收治的320例机械通气患者,分为两组,异丙酚组120例,咪唑安定组200例。异丙酚组:插管前予静脉注射异丙酚1.00～3.00mg/kg,插管后行机械通气,用输液泵持续予静脉注射异丙酚0.50～4.00mg/(kg.h),镇静持续时间为(25±5.6)h。咪唑安定组插管前则静脉注射咪唑安定0.06～0.30mg/kg行镇静诱导,插管后行机械通气,用输液泵持续予静脉注射咪唑安定0.04～0.20mg/(kg.h)。镇静持续时间为(28.5±6.4)h。结果药物起效时间异丙酚组为(15±5)s,咪唑安定组为(63.1±10.3)s,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。两组患者均达到Ramsay氏分级标准3～4级之间,异丙酚组所需时间为(20±15)min,咪唑安定组所需时间为(30±16)min。两组患者用药前后血氧饱和度、动脉血氧分压、动脉血二氧化碳分压、呼吸均有明显改善(P<0.05),组间差异无统计学意义。停药后神志恢复时间:异丙酚组(9.6±6.5)min,咪唑安定组(55±10.7)min,两组比较P<0.01。异丙酚组有5例出现血压下降。结论异丙酚和咪唑安定用于ICU危重患者的镇静均能取得满意的镇静效果。
Objective To study the difference of sedative effects of Propofol and Midazolam on patients with mechanical ventilation. Methods 320 ICU patients with mechanical ventilation from Jan 2007 to May 2008 were divided into two groups, 120 patients were given with Propofol and the other 200 patients with Midazolain. In Propofol group：Propofol（ 1.00 -3. 00 mg/kg）was injected intravenously as sedative induction before intubation, administer mechanical ventilation after intubation, followed by continuous injection intravenous 0. 50 - 4.00 mg/（ kg · h） using injecting pump. The duration of sedation was （ 25 ± 5.6 ） hours. In Midazolam group ： Midazolam（0. 06 -0. 30 mg/kg）was injected intravenously as sedative induction before intubation, administer mechanical ventilation after intubation, followed by continuous injection intravenous 0. 04 -0. 20 mg/（ kg · h）using injecting pump. The duration of sedation was （28.5 ± 6. 4） h. Results The time to take effect of propofol group was （ 15 ± 5 ） seconds, compared with （ 63.1 ± 10. 3 ） seconds in Midazolam group, showing significant difference（ P 〈 0.01 ）. Grades 3 -4 ramsay classification was reached in patients of both groups. The time needed to reach it was（20 ± 15 ） min in the Propofol group and（ 30 ± 15 ） min in Midazolam group. Performance of blood oxygen saturation, arterial partial pressure of oxygen, arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure and respiration were improved significantly for both group of patients. And there was no remarkable significance in differences between the two groups （ P 〈 0. 05 ）. Consciousness recovery time after stopping drug： the Propofol group was（9. 6 ±6. 5）min and the Midazolam group was（55 ± 10. 7） min（P 〈0. 01 ）. 5 cases in Propofol group were recorded dropped blood pressue. Conclusion Both Propofol and Midazolam have good sedative effects in ICU patients.
出处
《中国实用医药》
2008年第30期42-44,共3页
China Practical Medicine
关键词
异丙酚
咪唑安定
机械通气
镇静
Propofol
Midazolam
Mechanical ventilation
Sedation
