目的:觀察七氟醚靶控用于低流量吸入麻醉維持的臨床規律及血流動力學變化,尋求靶控下的藥物量化指標。方法:選擇60例20～60歲手術患者,隨機分2組每組30例:P組(丙泊酚)常規實施全憑靜脈TCI靶控麻醉;S組(七氟醚),實施低流量七氟醚靶控吸入麻醉(BIS值40)。分別記錄誘導前(T1),插管后5(T2)、15(T3)、30(T4)45(T5)、60(T6)、90(T7)、120(T8)min時的、MBP、HR、;Sev組患者加記各個時點的七氟醚IT、ET的MAC值。結果:T2點兩組均比T1 降低(Plt;0.05),S 組高于P組(Plt;0.05),兩組比較T3至T7無顯著性差異(Pgt;0.05);S 組T3 至T7 各點ET值無統計學差異,ET%:2.46,約1.4 MAC。結論:(1)七氟醚誘導較靜脈麻醉誘導患者血流動力學穩定,(2)低流量七氟醚靶控吸入麻醉維持平穩,調控簡便,效果良好。
Objective To identify, describe, and evaluate the evidence of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) interventions for cancer-related fatigue (CRF) using an evidence mapping approach. Methods The CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, Web of Science and Embase databases were electronically searched to collect studies on TCM interventions for CRF from inception to June 4, 2024. Evidence mapping was employed to present the characteristics of study populations, interventions, studies included in systematic review/meta-analysis (SR/MA), and conclusions. Results A total of 94 randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 17 SR/MA/network MA were included. The number of publications has shown an overall fluctuating upward trend in the past 15 years. The RCT included literature with a high focus on mixed cancers, involving a total of 51 TCM therapeutic measures, including 40 herbal treatments, 5 external TCM treatments, and 5 TCM integrative therapies. The outcome indicators were classified into 14 categories, with the most frequent ones being CRF scores, TCM syndrome scores, clinical efficacy, quality of life scores, immune function indicators, adverse event rates, and serum indicators. The SR/MA included 7-81 original studies with sample sizes of 551-7 547 cases, involving 5 intervention measures: herbal medicine (9 studies), moxibustion (3 studies), TCM injection (2 studies), moxibustion (2 studies), and acupuncture (1 study). The quality of RCT and SR/MA was generally low, and the evidence quality was low. Most studies showed that TCM interventions for CRF had potential efficacy, but there was still a lack of definitive clinical evidence. Conclusion The results suggest that TCM interventions for CRF have advantages but also problems. There is still a lack of high-quality research. More large-sample, multicenter RCT and high-quality SR/MA are needed to further explore the advantages of TCM interventions for CRF and provide strong support for the effectiveness and safety of TCM interventions for CRF.