Objective To study the sedative effects and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolamfor acute exacerbate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ( AECOPD) underwentmechanical ventilation.Methods 68 AECOPD patients underwentmechanical ventilation were enrolled and randomly divided into adexmedetomidine group ( n =34) and a midazolam group ( n = 34) by acute physiology and chronic healthevaluation Ⅱ ( APACHEⅡ) score. The patients in the dexmedetomidine group were given a loading dose( 1 μg/kg) and then maintained with 0. 2-0. 8 mg·kg- 1 ·h- 1 . The patients in the midazolam group weregiven a loading dose ( 0. 05 mg/kg) and then maintained with 0. 06-0. 2 mg· kg- 1 · h- 1 . Sedation levelwas assessed by Ramsay score and maintained a Ramsay score of 3-4. The sedation onset time, disablesedatives wake time, duration of mechanical ventilation, extubation success rate, ICU length of stay, and 28days mortality after admission to the ICU were compared between two groups. And calmer respiratorydepression, circulatory and delirium adverse reactions incidence were also compared. Results Thedifferences in patients’age, gender, and APACHEⅡ score between two groups were not significant ( P gt;0. 05) . Compared with the midazolam group, the dexmedetomidine group had more rapid onset of sedation[ ( 49. 80 ±8. 20) s vs. ( 107. 55 ±19. 65) s, P lt;0. 01] , shorter wake-up time [ ( 18. 90 ±2. 30) min vs. ( 40. 82 ±19. 85) min, P lt;0. 01] , shorter duration of mechanical ventilation [ ( 4. 9 ±1. 6) d vs. ( 7. 8 ±2. 5) d,P lt;0. 01] , higher successful extubation rate ( 79. 41% vs. 58. 82% , P lt;0. 01) , and shorter ICUlength of stay[ ( 6. 5 ±2. 5) d vs. ( 9. 6 ±3. 4) d, P lt;0. 05] . Dexmedetomidine had lower respiratory depression rate, littleeffects on hemodynamics, lower occurrence and short duration of delirium. Conclusion It is highlyrecommended that dexmedetomidine be used for sedation in AECOPD patients with mechanical ventilation.
Objective To evaluate the sedative and analgesic efficacy and adverse effect of dexmedetomidine versus propofol on the postoperative patients in intensive care unit (ICU). Methods The relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, SCI, SpringerLinker, ScinceDirect, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and CBM from the date of their establishment to November 2011. The quality of the included studies was evaluated after the data were extracted by two reviewers independently, and then the meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.1. Results Ten RCTs involoving 793 cases were included. The qualitative analysis results showed: within a certain range of dosage as dexmedetomidine: 0.2-2.5 μg/(kg·h), and propofol: 0.8-4 mg/(kg·h), dexmedetomidine was similar to propofol in sedative effect, but dexmedetomidine group needed smaller dosage of supplemental analgesics during the period of sedative therapy. The results of meta-analysis showed: the percentage of patients needing supplemental analgesics in dexmedetomidine group was less than that in propofol group during the period of sedative therapy (OR=0.24, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.68, P=0.008). Compared with the propofol group, the duration of ICU stay was significantly shorter in the dexmedetomidine group (WMD= –1.10, 95%CI –1.88 to –0.32, P=0.006), but the mechanical ventilated time was comparable between the two groups (WMD=0.89, 95%CI –1.15 to 2.93, P=0.39); the incidence of adverse effects had no significant difference between two groups (bradycardia: OR=3.57, 95%CI 0.86 to 14.75, P=0.08; hypotension: OR=1.00, 95%CI 0.30 to 3.32, P=1.00); respiratory depression seemed to be more frequently in propofol group, which however needed further study. Mortalities were similar in both groups after the sedative therapy (OR=1.03, 95%CI 0.54 to 1.99, P=0.92). Conclusion Within an exact range of dosage, dexmedetomidine is comparable with propofol in sedative effect. Besides, it has analgesic effect, fewer adverse effects and fewer occurrences of respiratory depression, and it can save the extra dosage of analgesics and shorten ICU stay. Still, more larger-sample, multi-center RCTs are needed to provide more evidence to support this outcome.
目的 觀察右美托咪啶復合舒芬太尼用于經腹子宮全切術后患者自控靜脈鎮痛（PCIA）的效果。 方法 2011年3月－2012年6月選擇經腹子宮全切術患者90例，年齡39～68歲，體重48～72 kg，美國麻醉醫師協會分級Ⅰ～Ⅱ級。采用隨機數字表法，將患者隨機分為3組，每組各30例。于手術結束即刻行PCIA。對照組（C組）采用舒芬太尼150 μg+昂丹司瓊12 mg；S1組采用右美托咪定200 μg+舒芬太尼100 μg+昂丹司瓊12 mg；S2組采用右美托咪定200 μg+舒芬太尼150 μg+昂丹司瓊12 mg。3組均用生理鹽水稀釋至100 mL，負荷劑量均為舒芬太尼0.1 μg/kg，靜脈鎮痛泵背景輸注速度2 mL/h，自控給藥劑量0.5 mL，鎖定時間15 min。記錄術后6、12、24和48 h Ramsay鎮靜評分和視覺模擬評分（VAS），記錄不良反應發生情況和患者對術后鎮痛的滿意度。 結果 3組患者均能獲得較好的鎮痛效果。其中C組VAS評分較低，但惡心、嘔吐、皮膚瘙癢發生率升高；與C組相比，Sl組和S2組Ramsay鎮靜評分升高，惡心、嘔吐、皮膚瘙癢發生率降低，患者滿意度升高。S1組患者滿意度最高；S2組VAS評分最低。3組均未發生心動過緩、低血壓、過度鎮靜和呼吸抑制。 結論 右美托咪啶可增加經腹子宮全切術患者術后舒芬太尼自控靜脈鎮痛的效果，提高患者滿意度，降低不良反應。
目的 觀察比較右美托咪啶復合丙泊酚應用于無痛纖維支氣管鏡檢查，及對呼吸循環、蘇醒時間的影響和不良反應。 方法 2011年3月－2012年12月選擇美國麻醉師協會評分Ⅰ～Ⅱ級行無痛纖維支氣管鏡檢查患者50例，采用隨機數字表法分為兩組（n=25），即右美托咪啶復合丙泊酚組（A組）和芬太尼復合丙泊酚組（B組）。A組術前15 min給鹽酸右美托咪啶負荷劑量0.6～0.8 μg/kg泵入，B組泵入相同劑量的生理鹽水后，緩慢靜注芬太尼0.05 mg；兩組靜注1～2 mg/kg丙泊酚負荷量，后以2～4 mg/（kg·h）泵注丙泊酚維持。記錄兩組患者麻醉前、置纖維支氣管鏡前、置纖維支氣管鏡后2 min、15 min、蘇醒時的平均動脈壓（MAP）、心率（HR）、呼吸頻率（RR）、血氧飽和度（SpO2）和心電圖（ECG）等情況，并記錄手術時間、術后蘇醒時間及丙泊酚用量和檢查治療期間患者肢體躁動、嗆咳等情況。 結果 與B組比較，A組術中的MAP、HR和RR較為平穩，縮短了術后蘇醒時間，可減少丙泊酚的用量（P＜0.05）。 結論 右美托咪啶復合丙泊酚應用于無痛纖維支氣管鏡檢查，是一種安全、可行的麻醉方法。
【摘要】 目的 評價α2受體激動劑是否可以降低七氟烷引起的小兒術后躁動的發生率。 方法 通過檢索Medline、荷蘭醫學文摘、Cochrane臨床試驗數據庫、中國生物醫學文獻數據庫和中國期刊網全文數據庫等數據庫，收集可樂定或右美托咪啶對七氟烷引起的小兒術后躁動的預防作用的隨機對照試驗（randomized controlled trial，RCT），提取資料和評估方法學質量，采用Cochrane協作網RevMan 5.0軟件進行Meta分析。 結果 最終納入11個RCT，其中104例患兒預防性使用右美托咪啶，268例患兒使用可樂定，365例患兒使用安慰劑。Meta分析顯示，可樂定組小兒術后躁動發生率的比值比（OR）為0.31，95%CI為（0.15，0.61）（P=0.000 8）；右美托咪啶組小兒術后躁動發生率的OR為0.16，95%CI為（0.08，0.31）（Plt;0.000 01）。 結論 α2受體激動劑可以顯著降低七氟烷引起的小兒術后躁動的發生率。【Abstract】 Objective To determine whether alpha2-adrenoceptor agonists can decrease emergence agitation (EA) in pediatric patients after sevoflurane anesthesia. Methods The Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM and CNKI were searched. All randomized controlled trials comparing clonidine or dexmedetomidine with other interventions in preventing emergence agitation after sevoflurane anesthesia were retrieved. Study selection and assessment, data collection and analyses were undertaken. Meta-analysis was done using the Cochrane Collaboration RevMan 5.0 software. Results Eleven articles reached our inclusion criteria and were included in the Meta-analysis. A total of 104 children treated with dexmedetomidine, 268 children treated with clonidine, and 365 children treated with placebo were evaluated for the incidence of emergence agitation. The pooled odds ratio for the clonidine subgroup was 0.31, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.15-0.61 (P=0.000 8). The pooled odds ratio for the dexmedetomidine subgroup was 0.16, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.08-0.31 (Plt;0.000 01). Conclusion Alpha2-adrenoceptor agonists can significantly decrease the incidence of emergence agitation in pediatric patients after sevoflurane anesthesia.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the influence of dexmedetomidine on early postoperative cognitive dysfunction in adult patients after receiving noncardiac surgery under general anesthesia. MethodsThe randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the influence of dexmedetomidine on the early postoperative cognitive dysfunction of patients after receiving noncardiac surgery with general anesthesia was searched in PubMed, EBSCO, Springer, Ovid, The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2013), CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and Google Scholar up to November 30th, 2013. The references of included literature were also retrieved manually. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2. ResultsA total of 22 RCTs involving 1 356 patients were enrolled. The results of meta-analysis indicated that:a) dexmedetomidine reduced the incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction on the first day (RR=0.38, 95%CI 0.29 to 0.49, P < 0.001), on the seventh day (RR=0.55, 95%CI 0.23 to 1.29, P=0.17); improved postoperative MMSE scores after surgery (on the first day:MD=2.38, 95%CI 1.42 to 3.34, P < 0.001; on the seventh day:MD=0.92, 95%CI 0.16 to 1.68, P=0.02), and decreased the expression of inflammatory factor IL-6 (instant:MD=-11.96, 95%CI-18.45 to-5.46, P=0.000 3; after 24 h:MD=-7.50, 95%CI-13.73 to-1.27, P=0.02); and TNF-α (instant:MD=-4.09, 95%CI-7.02 to-1.16, P=0.006)) in patients. b) No significant difference was found between two groups (MD=-0.97, 95%CI-2.37 to 0.43, P=0.17). ConclusionDexmedetomidine can effectively reduce the early-stage postoperative cognitive dysfunction, improve MMSE scores after the operation, and reduce inflammatory reaction. In addition, due to the limited quantity and quality of studies included, larger sample, high quality RCTs are needed to verify the abovementioned conclusion.