陸忠輝,周逸剛,許 君
右美托咪定與芬太尼用于經(jīng)皮微波消融治療肝癌麻醉的比較
陸忠輝,周逸剛,許 君
目的 比較右美托咪定與芬太尼分別聯(lián)合丙泊酚用于超聲引導(dǎo)下經(jīng)皮微波消融療法(percutaueous microwave coagulation therapy,PMCT)治療肝癌的麻醉效果。方法 ASA Ⅰ~Ⅱ級(jí)預(yù)行PMCT治療肝癌患者40例,隨機(jī)分成芬太尼組(F組,n=20)和右美托咪定組(D組,n=20)。開放靜脈后,F(xiàn)組緩慢靜脈注射芬太尼1 μg /kg,D組靜脈微量泵注射右美托咪定0.5 μg /kg(注射時(shí)間為10 min),繼以0.5 μg/(kg·h)靜脈維持至PMCT結(jié)束前5 min左右。局部麻醉下超聲引導(dǎo)定位后,F(xiàn)組和D組分別以丙泊酚1~2 mg/kg和0.5 mg/kg(注藥速度4 ml/10 s)靜脈注射誘導(dǎo),分別以丙泊酚6~8 mg/(kg·h)和3~4 mg/(kg·h)靜脈輸注維持至PMCT結(jié)束;術(shù)中出現(xiàn)呻吟不適或身體扭動(dòng)者追加丙泊酚20~30 mg/次。觀察兩組患者丙泊酚用量、蘇醒時(shí)間、術(shù)中BP、HR和SpO2的變化,以及圍術(shù)期并發(fā)癥發(fā)生情況。治療結(jié)束后30 min進(jìn)行VRS疼痛評(píng)分并調(diào)查患者對(duì)麻醉的滿意度。結(jié)果 丙泊酚用量D組顯著低于F組(P<0.01),蘇醒時(shí)間D組明顯長(zhǎng)于F組(P<0.01)。F組 SBP、DBP和HR在PMCT治療前后波動(dòng)大于D組(P<0.05)。F組心動(dòng)過(guò)緩、低血壓、呼吸暫停和注射痛發(fā)生率分別為30%、20%、30%及90%,D組患者未有以上情況發(fā)生,兩組比較差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(注射痛P<0.01,余P<0.05)。治療結(jié)束后30 min ,VRS疼痛評(píng)分F組明顯高于D組(P<0.01),患者滿意率D組明顯高于F組(P<0.05)。結(jié)論 兩種麻醉方法均能滿足PMCT治療肝癌的需要,但右美托咪定除蘇醒時(shí)間延長(zhǎng)外,能顯著減少丙泊酚用量,且不良反應(yīng)少,對(duì)呼吸循環(huán)功能影響更小,患者滿意率更高。
右美托咪定;芬太尼;丙泊酚;經(jīng)皮微波消融;肝癌
超聲引導(dǎo)下經(jīng)皮微波消融療法(percutaueous microwave coagulation therapy,PMCT)是目前最為常用的肝癌局部治療方法之一,其局部溫度可達(dá)65~100 ℃,患者疼痛不適感強(qiáng)烈,局部麻醉難以滿足治療需要[1]。我院自開展PMCT療法以來(lái),采用芬太尼與丙泊酚復(fù)合麻醉,取得了較好的麻醉效果。新型鎮(zhèn)靜藥右美托咪定具有鎮(zhèn)靜、鎮(zhèn)痛、抑制交感神經(jīng)活性及無(wú)呼吸抑制等特性[2]。為觀察其用于刖癌微波治療的麻醉效果,我們采用右美托咪定和芬太尼分別聯(lián)合丙泊酚進(jìn)行麻醉,證明前者優(yōu)于后者。
1.1 對(duì)象 40例ASAⅠ~Ⅱ級(jí)預(yù)行PMCT肝癌患者,男31例,女9例,年齡33~58歲。CT顯示單發(fā)病灶34例,2個(gè)病灶者6例,腫瘤直徑為3.4~7.6 cm,隨機(jī)分成芬太尼組(F組,n=20)和右美托咪定組(D組,n=20)。兩組患者肝腎功能均無(wú)明顯異常,且無(wú)呼吸、循環(huán)及中樞神經(jīng)系統(tǒng)疾病。兩組患者性別、年齡、身高、體重和PMCT治療時(shí)間等指標(biāo)比較,差異無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P>0.05,表1)。
表1 超聲引導(dǎo)下經(jīng)皮微波消融治療肝癌 兩組患者一般情況比較 (n=20;
注:F組為芬太尼組;D組為右美托咪定組
1.2 方法 兩組患者術(shù)前常規(guī)肌內(nèi)注射地西泮10 mg。入室后常規(guī)鼻導(dǎo)管吸氧5 L/min,監(jiān)測(cè)心電(ECG)、血壓(BP)、心率(HR)及脈搏氧飽和度(SpO2)。開放靜脈后,F(xiàn)組緩慢靜脈注射芬太尼1 μg/kg,D組靜脈微量泵注射右美托咪定(批號(hào):20130601,江蘇恩華藥業(yè)股份有限公司)0.5 μg/kg(注射時(shí)間10 min),繼以0.5 μg/(kg·h)靜脈維持至PMCT結(jié)束前5 min左右。局部麻醉下超聲引導(dǎo)定位后,F(xiàn)組以丙泊酚1~2 mg/kg(注藥速度4 ml/10 s)靜脈注射誘導(dǎo),繼以丙泊酚6~8 mg/(kg·h)靜脈注射維持至PMCT結(jié)束;D組靜脈注射丙泊酚0.5 mg/kg(注藥速度4 ml/10 s)后以丙泊酚3~4 mg/(kg·h)維持至PMCT結(jié)束。兩組患者術(shù)中出現(xiàn)呻吟不適或身體扭動(dòng)者均追加丙泊酚20~30 mg/次。
1.3 觀察指標(biāo) 觀察并記錄兩組患者入室時(shí)(T0),麻醉誘導(dǎo)前(T1),麻醉誘導(dǎo)后(T2),PMCT后3 min(T3)、5 min(T4)、10 min(T5)及PMCT結(jié)束后(T6)的SBP、DBP、HR和SpO2。其中以SBP下降超過(guò)麻醉前20%或低于90 mmHg為低血壓,以HR低于60次/min為心動(dòng)過(guò)緩。記錄兩組患者PMCT治療時(shí)間、丙泊酚總用量、蘇醒時(shí)間(從停藥至呼之睜眼所需時(shí)間),觀察并記錄心動(dòng)過(guò)緩、低血壓、呼吸暫停、惡心嘔吐、注射痛及術(shù)中體位變動(dòng)等情況。治療結(jié)束后30 min進(jìn)行VRS疼痛評(píng)分,并調(diào)查患者對(duì)麻醉的滿意度(滿意,基本滿意,不滿意)。VRS疼痛評(píng)分[3]:0分,無(wú)痛;1分,輕微疼痛;2分,不適痛;3分,具痛苦感的痛;4分,嚴(yán)重痛;5分,劇烈痛。
丙泊酚總用量,F(xiàn)組為(4.5±0.6 )mg/kg,D組為(2.3±0.4)mg/kg,D組明顯低于F組(P<0.01);蘇醒時(shí)間F組為(6.9±1.7)min,D組為(12.7±1.6 )min,兩組比較差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P<0.01)。F組 SBP、DBP和HR在PMCT治療前后波動(dòng)大于D組(P<0.05,表2)。PMCT結(jié)束30 min后VRS疼痛評(píng)分,F(xiàn)組為(1.7±0.5)分,D組為(0.6±0.3)分,兩組比較差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P<0.01)。F組心動(dòng)過(guò)緩、低血壓、呼吸暫停、注射痛等發(fā)生率高于D組(P<0.01,余P<0.05),患者滿意率低于D組(P<0.05,表3)。
表2 經(jīng)皮微波消融療法治療肝癌兩組圍術(shù)期SBP、DBP、HR及SpO2比較 ;n=20)
注:F組為芬太尼組;D組為右美托咪定組;與T1比較,①P<0.01;與T2比較,②P<0.01;與F組比較,③P<0.05,④P<0.01
表3 經(jīng)皮微波消融治療肝癌兩組圍術(shù)期并發(fā)癥 及滿意率比較 (n;%)
注: F組為芬太尼組;D組為右美托咪定組;與F組比較,①P<0.05,②P<0.01
PMCT治療肝癌時(shí),若單純輸注丙泊酚進(jìn)行麻醉,則用量較大,易引起血流動(dòng)力學(xué)劇烈波動(dòng)和呼吸暫停[4],故臨床麻醉時(shí)常需復(fù)合麻醉性鎮(zhèn)痛藥。本研究采用右美托咪定和芬太尼分別聯(lián)合丙泊酚,對(duì)行PMCT治療肝癌患者進(jìn)行麻醉,結(jié)果表明,兩種麻醉方法均能滿足手術(shù)的麻醉需求,但與芬太尼相比,右美托咪定除蘇醒時(shí)間明顯延長(zhǎng)外,丙泊酚用藥劑量顯著減少,在維護(hù)圍術(shù)期呼吸循環(huán)功能穩(wěn)定方面更具優(yōu)勢(shì)。
芬太尼脂溶性高,具有起效快、蘇醒快的優(yōu)點(diǎn),但易出現(xiàn)呼吸抑制及心動(dòng)過(guò)緩等并發(fā)癥[5]。本研究中,F(xiàn)組30%患者發(fā)生心動(dòng)過(guò)緩、20%患者發(fā)生低血壓、30%患者發(fā)生呼吸暫停。右美托咪定作為新型高選擇性α2-腎上腺素能受體激動(dòng)藥,通過(guò)作用于神經(jīng)中樞藍(lán)斑核的受體發(fā)揮鎮(zhèn)靜、抗焦慮、抗交感活性作用,通過(guò)激活脊髓α2c受體亞型發(fā)揮其鎮(zhèn)痛作用[6]。有研究表明,右美托咪定對(duì)呼吸的影響與深度睡眠對(duì)呼吸的影響相似[7],因此對(duì)呼吸無(wú)明顯抑制作用,且對(duì)血流動(dòng)力學(xué)有穩(wěn)定作用[8]。當(dāng)與丙泊酚合用時(shí)可減少丙泊酚用量,并能明顯加深鎮(zhèn)靜深度[9,10],且呼吸抑制作用也明顯輕于芬太尼與丙泊酚合用時(shí)[11]。本研究表明,D組患者SBP、DBP及HR在PMCT治療前后變化不明顯;F組呼吸暫停發(fā)生率30%,D組未發(fā)生,因而右美托咪定聯(lián)合丙泊酚對(duì)保留自主呼吸的麻醉處理具有相當(dāng)優(yōu)勢(shì)。
右美托咪定作用于腦干藍(lán)斑核發(fā)揮其血壓和心率降低作用[6],因而心動(dòng)過(guò)緩和低血壓是右美托咪定的常見并發(fā)癥。本研究未發(fā)生以上情況,這可能與右美托咪定注射劑量偏小及丙泊酚用量顯著減少有關(guān)。D組患者亦未發(fā)生丙泊酚靜脈注射痛,這可能與右美托咪定可有效預(yù)防注射痛有關(guān)。此外,右美托咪定半衰期為2 h,在PMCT治療術(shù)后仍可起到一定的鎮(zhèn)靜鎮(zhèn)痛作用,故患者對(duì)麻醉的總體滿意度較高。
[1] 秦 軍. 肝癌微波消融治療的研究進(jìn)展[J]. 醫(yī)學(xué)綜述,2012,18(17):2791-2794.
[2] 張 燕,鄭利民. 右美托咪定的藥理作用及臨床應(yīng)用進(jìn)展[J]. 國(guó)際麻醉學(xué)與復(fù)蘇雜志,2007,28(6):544-547.
[3] 莊心良,曾因明,陳伯鑾. 現(xiàn)代麻醉學(xué)[M]. 3版. 北京:人民衛(wèi)生出版社,2003:2546-2547.
[4] Pollard B J,Elliott R A,Moore E W. Anaesthetic agents in adult day case surgery[J]. Eur J Anaesthesiol, 2003,20(1):1-9.
[5] Phillips A S, McMurray T J, Mirakhur R K,etal. Propofol -fentanyl anaesthesia in cardiac surgery: a comparison in patients with good and impaired ventricular function[J]. Anaesthesia,1993,48(8):661-663.
[6] 石 佳,于欽軍. 右美托咪定的藥理作用及在重癥監(jiān)護(hù)病房中的應(yīng)用[J]. 國(guó)際麻醉學(xué)與復(fù)蘇分冊(cè)雜志,2007,28(6):540-543.
[7] Bergese S D,Patrick Bender S,McSweney T D,etal.A comparative study of demedetomidine with midazolam and midazolam alone for sedation during elective awake fiberoptic intubation[J]. J Clin Anesth,2010,22(1):35-40.
[8] 鮑勃楊,熙贊康,斯妍娜,等. 右美托咪定的實(shí)驗(yàn)研究和臨床應(yīng)用[J]. 臨床麻醉學(xué)雜志,2011,27(10):1034-1040.
[9] Fan T W, Ti L K, Islam I. Comparison of dexmedetomidine and midazolam for conscious sedation in dental surgery monitoread by bispectral index[J]. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2013,51(5):428-433.
[10] Hsu Y W, Cortinez L I, Robertson K M,etal. Dexmedetomidine pharmacodynamics: part Ⅰ: crossover comparison of the respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil inhealthy volunteers[J]. Anesthesiology,2004,101(5):1066-1076.
[11] 劉翠翠,王世瑞,劉 雪,等. 右美托咪定與芬太尼對(duì)丙泊酚誘發(fā)患者呼吸抑制EC50影響的比較[J]. 中華麻醉學(xué)雜志,2013,33(8):940-943.
(2014-06-10收稿 2014-07-20修回)
(責(zé)任編輯 岳建華)
Anesthetic effect of dexmedetomidine or fentanyl in ultrasonically guided percutaneous microwave coagulation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma
LU Zhonghui,ZHOU Yigang,and XU Jun.
Department of Anesthesiology, Jiangsu Provincial Corps Hospital, Chinese People’s Armed Police Forces, Yangzhou 225003, China
Objective To compare the anesthetic effect of propofol combined with dexmedetomidine or fentanyl in ultrasonically guided percutaneous microwave coagulation therapy (PMCT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods Forty HCC patients (ASAⅠ-Ⅱ) were allocated randomly to two groups with 20 cases each. The patients in group F
intravenous anesthesia with fentanyl combined with propofol, and the patients in group D received intravenous anesthesia with dexmedetomidine combined with propofol during PMCT for HCC. The consumption of propofol, recovery time, BP, HR, SpO2and complications were assessed. VRS and patient’s satisfactions were assessed at 30 minutes after PMCT. Results The consumption of propofol in group D decreased more than that in group F (P<0.01). The recovery time in group F decreased more than that in group D (P<0.01). The changes of SBP, DBP and HR were more in group F than those in group D (P<0.05). The incidences of bradycardia, hypotension, apnoea and injection pain in group F were higher than those in group D (P<0.05). At 30 min after PMCT, VRS in group D decreased more than that in group F (P<0.01). The patient’s satisfactions in group F decreased more than that in group D (P<0.05). Conclusions Propofol combined with dexmedemidine or fentanyl provides satisfactory anesthesia for the operation of HCC with ultrasonically guided PMCT, but anesthesia with dexmedemindine increases recovery time and patient’s satisfactions, decreases consumption of propofol and adverse reactions, and has less effect on the respiratory and circulatory function than that with fentanyl.
dexmedetomidine; fentanyl; propofol; percutaneous microwave coagulation therapy; hepatocellular carcinoma
陸忠輝,本科學(xué)歷,主治醫(yī)師,E-mail:13852200680@163.com
225003揚(yáng)州,武警江蘇總隊(duì)醫(yī)院麻醉科
R614.24