亚剂量瑞芬太尼联合丙泊酚在小儿静脉麻醉维持中的应用价值及安全性

doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-1245.2024.02.028

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的　观察亚剂量瑞芬太尼联合丙泊酚在小儿静脉麻醉维持中的应用效果及安全性。方法　本文为随机对照试验，前瞻性选取2021年1月至2023年1月期间至南阳医学高等专科学校第一附属医院接受手术的125例患儿为研究对象，应用抽签法将其分为3组。常规剂量组中患儿男女比为22/20、年龄（9.45±1.23）岁，手术类型：22例为疝气手术，10例为扁桃体切除术，10例为骨科手术；亚剂量组中患儿男女比为20/21、年龄（9.33±1.16）岁，手术类型：22例为疝气手术，10例为扁桃体切除术，9例为骨科手术；低剂量组中患儿男女比为23/19、年龄（9.52±1.31）岁，手术类型：21例为疝气手术，11例为扁桃体切除术，10例为骨科手术。常规剂量组术中予以1.00 μg/kg瑞芬太尼配合丙泊酚维持麻醉，低剂量组术中予以0.25 μg/kg瑞芬太尼配合丙泊酚维持麻醉，亚剂量组术中予以0.50 μg/kg瑞芬太尼配合丙泊酚维持麻醉。比较3组患儿围手术期基础体征变化情况，术后苏醒、镇痛情况及麻醉相关不良反应发生情况。采用χ²检验、F检验、独立样本t检验。结果　术前，3组患儿的心率（HR）、平均动脉压（MAP）差异均无统计学意义（均P>0.05）；麻醉后10 min，亚剂量组的HR为（73.45±5.22）次/min，MAP为（79.11±5.33）mmHg（1 mmHg=0.133 kPa），高于常规剂量组［（70.14±5.17）次/min、（76.62±5.41）mmHg］（均P<0.05），与低剂量组［（74.49±5.23）次/min、（80.25±5.41）mmHg］比较差异均无统计学意义（均P>0.05）；气管插管时，亚剂量组的HR为（80.33±5.26）次/min，MAP为（81.25±5.45）mmHg，低于低剂量组［（83.28±5.41）次/min、（84.49±5.18）mmHg］（均P<0.05），与常规剂量组［（79.45±5.31）次/min、（80.44±5.32）mmHg］比较差异均无统计学意义（均P>0.05）；插管后30 min，亚剂量组的HR为（79.45±10.13）次/min，MAP为（80.23±10.16）mmHg，高于常规剂量组［（72.15±10.49）次/min、（73.22±10.25）mmHg］、低于低剂量组［（86.39±10.22）次/min、（87.24±10.18）mmHg］（均P<0.05）；术毕，亚剂量组的HR为（80.24±10.32）次/min，MAP为（83.39±10.47）mmHg，高于常规剂量组［（74.11±10.46）次/min、（77.25±10.35）mmHg］、低于低剂量组［（87.15±10.36）次/min、（90.72±10.18）mmHg］（均P<0.05）。术后，亚剂量组的苏醒时间［（11.45±5.46）min］短于常规剂量组［（14.28±5.33）min］（P<0.05），与低剂量组［（10.49±5.26）min］比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）；亚剂量组的视觉模拟评分法（VAS）评分［（3.29±1.27）分］低于低剂量组［（4.17±1.34）分］（P<0.05），与常规剂量组［（3.18±1.45）分］比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。亚剂量组的麻醉相关不良反应发生率9.76%（4/41）低于常规剂量组28.57%（12/42），差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）；略高于低剂量组7.14%（3/42），差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论　在小儿静脉麻醉维持中采用0.50 μg/kg亚剂量瑞芬太尼配合丙泊酚可在有效维持患儿术中基础体征稳定，同时产生显著的镇痛效果，对促进患儿苏醒、降低术后麻醉相关不良反应发生风险均有积极意义。

关键词:

瑞芬太尼, 丙泊酚, 小儿静脉麻醉, 麻醉效果, 麻醉安全性

Abstract:

Objective　To observe the efficacy and safety of sub-dose remifentanil combined with propofol in pediatric intravenous anesthesia maintenance. Methods　This was a randomized controlled trial. A total of 125 children who underwent surgery in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanyang Medical College from January 2021 to January 2023 were prospectively selected as the study objects and were divided into 3 groups by drawing lots. In the conventional dose group, the ratio of boys to girls was 22/20, the age was (9.45±1.23) years old, and the types of surgery were as follows: 22 cases of hernia surgery, 10 cases of tonsillectomy, and 10 cases of orthopedic surgery. In the sub-dose group, the ratio of boys to girls was 20/21, the age was (9.33±1.16) years old, and the types of surgery were as follows: 22 cases of hernia surgery, 10 cases of tonsillectomy, and 9 cases of orthopedic surgery. In the low-dose group, the ratio of boys to girls was 23/19, and the age was (9.52±1.31) years old, and the types of surgery were as follows: 21 cases of hernia surgery, 11 cases of tonsillectomy, and 10 cases of orthopedic surgery. The conventional dose group was given 1.00 μg/kg remifentanil combined with propofol to maintain anesthesia, the low-dose group was given 0.25 μg/kg remifentanil combined with propofol to maintain anesthesia, and the sub-dose group was given 0.50 μg/kg remifentanil combined with propofol to maintain anesthesia. The changes in basic physical signs during the perioperative period, postoperative recovery, pain relief, and anesthesia-related adverse reactions of the 3 groups were compared. χ² test, F test, and independent sample t test were used. Results　Before surgery, there were no statistically significant differences in the heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) among the 3 groups (both P>0.05). Ten min after anesthesia, the HR and MAP of the sub-dose group were (73.45±5.22) beats/min and (79.11±5.33) mmHg (1 mmHg = 0.133 kPa), which were higher than those of the conventional dose group [(70.14±5.17) beats/min and (76.62±5.41) mmHg] (both P<0.05), but there were no statistically significant differences compared with those of the low dose group [(74.49±5.23) beats/min and (80.25±5.41) mmHg] (both P>0.05). At the time of tracheal intubation, the HR and MAP of the sub-dose group were (80.33±5.26) beats/min and (81.25±5.45) mmHg, which were lower than those of the low-dose group [(83.28±5.41) beats/min and (84.49±5.18) mmHg] (both P<0.05), but there were no statistically significant differences compared with those of the conventional dose group [(79.45±5.31) beats/min and (80.44±5.32) mmHg] (both P>0.05). Thirty min after intubation, the HR and MAP of the sub-dose group were (79.45±10.13) beats/min and (80.23±10.16) mmHg, which were higher than those of the conventional dose group [(72.15±10.49) beats/min and (73.22±10.25) mmHg] but were lower than those of the low dose group [(86.39±10.22) beats/min and (87.24±10.18) mmHg] (all P<0.05). At the end of surgery, the HR and MAP of the sub-dose group were (80.24±10.32) beats/min and (83.39±10.47) mmHg, which were higher than those of the conventional dose group [(74.11±10.46) beats/min and (77.25±10.35) mmHg], but were lower than those of the low dose group [(87.15±10.36) beats/min and (90.72±10.18) mmHg] (all P<0.05). After surgery, the recovery time of the sub-dose group [(11.45±5.46) min] was shorter than that of the conventional dose group [(14.28±5.33) min] (P<0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference compared with that of the low dose group [(10.49±5.26) min] (P>0.05). The VAS score of the sub-dose group [(3.29±1.27) points] was lower than that of the low-dose group [(4.17±1.34) points] (P<0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference compared with that of the conventional dose group [(3.18±1.45) points] (P>0.05). The incidence of anesthesia-related adverse reactions in the sub-dose group was 9.76% (4/41), which was lower than that in the conventional dose group [28.57% (12/42)], with a statistically significant difference (P<0.05); it was slightly higher than that in the low-dose group [7.14% (3/42)], with no statistically significant difference (P>0.05). Conclusion　The use of 0.50 μg/kg remifentanil combined with propofol in pediatric intravenous anesthesia maintenance can effectively maintain the stability of basic signs in children during surgery, and produce significant analgesic effect, which has positive significance in promoting the children's recovery and reducing the risk of postoperative anesthesia-related adverse reactions.

Key words:

Remifentanil, Propofol, Pediatric intravenous anesthesia, Anesthesia effect, Anesthesia safety

罗韵徐国亭.

亚剂量瑞芬太尼联合丙泊酚在小儿静脉麻醉维持中的应用价值及安全性 [J]. 国际医药卫生导报, 2024, 30(2): 314-318.

Luo Yun, Xu Guoting.

Application value and safety of sub-dose remifentanil combined with propofol in the maintenance of intravenous anesthesia in children [J]. International Medicine and Health Guidance News, 2024, 30(2): 314-318.

参考文献

[1] 卫明.全凭静脉麻醉在小儿腹部及四肢手术中的应用[J].中国药物与临床,2020,20(4):572-573. DOI:10.11655/zgywylc2020.04.035.
[2] Nevešćanin Biliškov A, Gulam D, Žaja M, et al. Total Intravenous anesthesia with ketofol versus combination of ketofol and lidocaine for short-term anesthesia in pediatric patients; double blind, randomized clinical trial of effects on recovery[J]. Children (Basel), 2022, 9(2):282. DOI: 10.3390/children9020282.
[3] 李鹏.丙泊酚联合瑞芬太尼静脉麻醉对于小儿手术的麻醉效果分析[J].实用中西医结合临床,2021,21(11):40-41. DOI:10.13638/j.issn.1671-4040.2021.11.020.
[4] 曾昭河,邹翠芸.丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼全凭静脉麻醉在小儿腹腔镜手术中的临床观察[J].儿科药学杂志,2020,26(1):20-23. DOI:10.13407/j.cnki.jpp.1672-108X.2020.01.007.
[5] Shivali S, Thiagarajan P. A practical guide to the American Society of Anesthesiologists-physical status classification (ASA-PS) [J]. Indian J Anaesth, 2022, 66(4):299-300. DOI: 10.4103/ija.ija_526_21.
[6] 侯国清,马俊涛,岳海龙,等.右美托咪定在儿童腹部手术麻醉中的应用研究[J].中国煤炭工业医学杂志,2022,25(5):528-531. DOI:10.11723/mtgyyx1007-9564202205017.
[7] Shibamura-Fujiogi M, Ormsby J, Breibart M, et al. The role of anesthetic management in surgical site infections after pediatric intestinal surgery[J]. J Surg Res, 2021, 259:546-554. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.10.015.
[8] 冯燕春,黄格,阮浩神,等.瑞芬太尼复合依托咪酯和丙泊酚闭环靶诱导用于合并高血压的全麻气管插管患者效果观察[J].山东医药,2021,61(22):54-56. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-266X.2021.22.013.
[9] 丁洋子,张奉超,李立,等.麻醉深度监测丙泊酚伍用瑞芬太尼对扁桃体腺样体手术患儿血流动力学和应激反应的影响[J].重庆医学,2022,51(1):70-75. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1671-8348.2022.01.015.
[10] 卜亚楠,陈秋.丙泊酚联合瑞芬太尼静脉维持麻醉与静吸复合麻醉在颅脑肿瘤手术中的应用效果[J].山西医药杂志,2022,51(2):136-139. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.0253-9926. 2022.02.004.
[11] 杨勇.氯胺酮复合瑞芬太尼在小儿手术麻醉中的应用价值评析[J].中国卫生标准管理,2019,10(12):110-113. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-9316.2019.12.044.
[12] 周亚甫.不同阿片类药物靶控输注对宫颈癌根治术患者麻醉苏醒质量、Th17/Treg的影响[J].哈尔滨医药,2023,43(2):68-71. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1001-8131.2023.02.024.
[13] 王思亮,沈寿祥,田明.剖宫产病人应用瑞芬太尼复合地氟烷全身麻醉对胎儿的影响研究[J].中国实验诊断学,2021,25(3):340-343.
[14] 郑会宝,陈恺铮,沈霞.比较听神经瘤切除术后苏醒期瑞芬太尼靶控输注下丙泊酚和地氟醚麻醉对气管拔管呛咳的影响[J].复旦学报(医学版),2021,48(2):224-228. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-8467.2021.02.012.
[15] 柯琳,何婧婧,郝维平,等.瑞芬太尼与芬太尼在泌尿外科腔镜手术麻醉中的应用分析[J].中国卫生标准管理,2022,13(2):81-84. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-9316.2022.02.023.