摘要
目的：观察右美托咪定对AECOPD机械通气患者的镇静效果及安全性。方法：选取AECOPD机械通气患者36例,按随机数字表法分为两组,分别给予咪达唑仑（对照组,16例）和右美托咪定（试验组,20例）镇静治疗,两组均常规给予吗啡持续静脉泵入镇痛,使镇静深度评分控制在3~4分,记录呼吸、心率、血压、谵妄发生率、Ramsay评分及唤醒时间。结果：两组患者心率减慢、血压下降发生率比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;但试验组呼吸抑制、谵妄的发生率显著低于对照组（P〈0.01,P〈0.05）,两组Ramsay评分比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。两组唤醒时间差异有显著统计学意义（P〈0.01）。结论：右美托咪定是ICU AECOPD机械通气患者镇静的良好选择。
Objective：To observe sedative effect and safety of dexmedetomidine for AECOPD patients treated with mechanical ventilation. Method： 36 cases of AECOPD patients treated with mechanical ventilation were en- rolled and divided into two groups by random numerical table method. They were treated either with midazolam （the control group, 16 cases） or dexmedetomidine （the experiment group, 20 cases）, In both groups morphine was given intravenously continually for analgesia. The dose of sedation maintained 3-4 sedative score. Breath, heart rate, blood pressure, the rate of delirium, Ramsay score and amaking time were recorded in two groups, Result：No significant differences were found in the items such as the rate of heart rate slowed down and the rate of blood pressure decreased among both groups（P〉0.05）. There was lower the rate of breath controlled in the experiment group than in the control group（P〈0.01）. So was the rate of delirium（P〈0, 05）. No significant differences were found in the items such as Ramsay score among both groups（P〉0.05）. There were very significant differences on amaking time between both groups（P〈0.01 ）. Conclusion： Dexmedetomidine was a better choice for the sedation of AECOPD patients treated with mechanical ventilation in ICU.
出处
《临床急诊杂志》
CAS
2015年第1期24-25,共2页
Journal of Clinical Emergency
