中外医疗
中外醫療
중외의료
CHINA FOREIGN MEDICAL TREATMENT
2015年
13期
116-118
,共3页
丙泊酚%瑞芬太尼%舒芬太尼%肾移植%麻醉
丙泊酚%瑞芬太尼%舒芬太尼%腎移植%痳醉
병박분%서분태니%서분태니%신이식%마취
Propofol%Remifentanil%Sufentanil%Renal transplantation%Anesthesia
目的：探讨不同组合的麻醉药物的对肾移植手术的安全性和临床效果。方法受试者均为肾移植手术患者，随机分为两组，共80例，每组40例。Ⅰ组采用丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼麻醉，Ⅱ组采用丙泊酚复合舒芬太尼进行麻醉。分别比较两组患者麻醉前后、术中术后的平均动脉压(MAP)、心率(HR)和末梢血氧饱和度(SPO2)，以及患者清醒时间(T)等参数，并严密观察患者不良反应的发生情况。结果麻醉后较麻醉前，两组患者的MAP、HR、SPO2均降低，Ⅰ组SPO2明显低于Ⅱ组(P<0.05)，MAP和HR两组差异无统计学意义；手术中和手术后，两组受试者的MAP、HR和SPO2均不存在显著差异；两组患者的清醒时间无显著差异；两组患者一般体动、严重体动、低血压、心动过缓发生率差异无统计学意义；Ⅰ组低氧血症发生率高于Ⅱ组。结论瑞芬太尼和舒芬太尼复合丙泊酚用于肾移植手术的麻醉镇痛效果均比较显著，安全性高，但舒芬太尼在术中生命体征更加平稳，术后恢复较快，效果更佳。
目的：探討不同組閤的痳醉藥物的對腎移植手術的安全性和臨床效果。方法受試者均為腎移植手術患者，隨機分為兩組，共80例，每組40例。Ⅰ組採用丙泊酚複閤瑞芬太尼痳醉，Ⅱ組採用丙泊酚複閤舒芬太尼進行痳醉。分彆比較兩組患者痳醉前後、術中術後的平均動脈壓(MAP)、心率(HR)和末梢血氧飽和度(SPO2)，以及患者清醒時間(T)等參數，併嚴密觀察患者不良反應的髮生情況。結果痳醉後較痳醉前，兩組患者的MAP、HR、SPO2均降低，Ⅰ組SPO2明顯低于Ⅱ組(P<0.05)，MAP和HR兩組差異無統計學意義；手術中和手術後，兩組受試者的MAP、HR和SPO2均不存在顯著差異；兩組患者的清醒時間無顯著差異；兩組患者一般體動、嚴重體動、低血壓、心動過緩髮生率差異無統計學意義；Ⅰ組低氧血癥髮生率高于Ⅱ組。結論瑞芬太尼和舒芬太尼複閤丙泊酚用于腎移植手術的痳醉鎮痛效果均比較顯著，安全性高，但舒芬太尼在術中生命體徵更加平穩，術後恢複較快，效果更佳。
목적：탐토불동조합적마취약물적대신이식수술적안전성화림상효과。방법수시자균위신이식수술환자，수궤분위량조，공80례，매조40례。Ⅰ조채용병박분복합서분태니마취，Ⅱ조채용병박분복합서분태니진행마취。분별비교량조환자마취전후、술중술후적평균동맥압(MAP)、심솔(HR)화말소혈양포화도(SPO2)，이급환자청성시간(T)등삼수，병엄밀관찰환자불량반응적발생정황。결과마취후교마취전，량조환자적MAP、HR、SPO2균강저，Ⅰ조SPO2명현저우Ⅱ조(P<0.05)，MAP화HR량조차이무통계학의의；수술중화수술후，량조수시자적MAP、HR화SPO2균불존재현저차이；량조환자적청성시간무현저차이；량조환자일반체동、엄중체동、저혈압、심동과완발생솔차이무통계학의의；Ⅰ조저양혈증발생솔고우Ⅱ조。결론서분태니화서분태니복합병박분용우신이식수술적마취진통효과균비교현저，안전성고，단서분태니재술중생명체정경가평은，술후회복교쾌，효과경가。
Objective To investigate the safety and clinical effect of different anesthesia drugs used in the renal transplantation. Methods We separated the renal transplantation patients into two groups randomly, 20 patients for each group. Group Ⅰ were used remifentanil/ propofol to induce anesthesia, group II were used sufentanil/ propofol to induce anesthesia. MAP, HR, SPO2 and recovery of anesthesia were determined in all patients, and adverse reactions were performed with closely observing. Results MAP, HR and SPO2 decreased after anesthesia in both groups, SPO2 of group Ⅰ was significantly below group II (P<0.05), and there was no obvious difference in MAP and HR between the two groups. In and after the surgery, MAP, HR and SPO2 had no sig-nificant difference. The awaking time of both groups had no significant difference. No significant difference was found in body movement, serious body movement, hypotension and bradycardia among the two groups. The occurrence rate of hypoxemia in groupⅠwas significantly above groupII. Conclusion The analgesic effect of remifentanil/propofol and sufentanil/propofol used in the renal transplantation are all markedly and high- security, but group II had more stable vital signs in the surgery and more rapid recovery, so groupIIhad a better efficacy.
