摘要
目的探讨硬膜外阻滞麻醉复合气管全麻与气管内静脉吸入麻醉的应用对急腹症合并感染性休克患者的临床效果的影响。方法选取2014年4月-2015年6月临床确诊为急腹症合并感染性休克患者65例,将其进行随机分组,对照组35例,采用气管内插管吸入麻醉,观察组30例,采用硬膜外阻滞麻醉复合气管全麻。对整个麻醉过程中两组患者的生命体征进行比较和分析。结果对照组患者术中的收缩压(SBP)与舒张压(DBP)显著低于诱导期(P<0.05);术中观察组患者的SBP与DBP却显著高于对照组,对比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组患者的自主恢复呼吸时间、睁眼时间以及拔管时间较对照组均显著缩短(P<0.05);两组患者的疼痛VAS评分比较差异无统计学意义,而观察组患者的不良反应率显著低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论对急腹症合并感染性休克患者,采用硬膜外阻滞麻醉复合气管全麻的临床效果优于气管内静脉吸入麻醉,患者的生命体征更加平稳,麻醉后恢复较快且不良反应率较低,安全性较高。
OBJECTIVE To investigate the effects of different clinical anesthesia on patients with acute abdomen combined with septic shock,and to contrast the application value of epidural block anesthesia combined with general anesthesia and endotracheal intubation anesthesia.METHODS From Apr.2014 to Jun.2015,65 cases of patients diagnosed in our hospital with acute abdomen combined with septic shock were selected,and they were randomly divided into two groups,of which 35 cases were as the control group with endotracheal intubation inhalation anesthesia and the other 30 cases as observation group with epidural anesthesia combined with general anesthesia trachea.Comparison and analysis of the vital signs for the patients in the two groups were carried out during the whole anesthesia process.RESULTS While SBP and DBP of patients in control group during operation was significantly lower than that in the induction period（P〈0.05）.During operation,SBP and DBP of patients in observation group were significantly higher than that in control group（P〈0.05）;the time of self-recovery breathing,eye opening and extubation in observation group were all shorter than that in control group（P〈0.05）.VAS pain scores between the two groups was not significant,adverse reaction rate in observation group was significantly lower than that in control group（P〈0.05）.CONCLUSIONFor patients with acute abdomen combined with septic shock,the clinical effect of epidural anesthesia combined with general anesthesia trachea is better than that of endotracheal intubation inhalation anesthesia for the patient＇s vital signs are more stable with faster recovery,low adverse reaction rate and high security.
出处
《中华医院感染学杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2016年第5期1078-1080,共3页
Chinese Journal of Nosocomiology
基金
河南省医学科技攻关计划基金资助项目(20124162)
