【摘要】目的观察低浓度罗哌卡因复合舒芬太尼用于分娩镇痛的效果。方法2007年5月8月按入选标准选择100例产妇,随机分成试验组和对照组,每组50例。试验组分娩前给予低浓度罗哌卡因加舒芬太尼,对照组不行无痛分娩,通过视觉模拟评分法等指标观察镇痛效果。结果试验组镇痛后视觉模拟评分较对照组低(Plt;0.05);两组镇痛期间血压、心率差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05），新生儿Apgar评分比较无统计学意义(Pgt;0.05)。结论联合应用罗哌卡因和舒芬太尼用于硬膜外分娩镇痛能取得较好的效果,值得在临床中推广应用。
Objective To systematically review the clinical effectiveness and safety of sufentanil-propofol versus remifentanil-propofol during total intravenous anesthesia for neurosurgery. Methods Databases including The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2013), the database of the Cochrane Anesthesia Group, MEDLINE, EMbase, PubMed, Ovid, Springer, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were electronically searched from inception to May 2013 for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of sufentanil-propofol versus remifentanil-propofol during total intravenous anesthesia for neurosurgery. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. Results Thirteen trials involving 647 patients were finally included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: a) for hemodynamic changes, MAP decreased in the remifentanil-propofol group after induction and decreased 5 minutes after intubation, but no significant difference was found between the two groups; the two groups were alike in MAP changes during craniotomy and extubation, and in HR changes after induction, 5 minutes after intubation, during craniotomy and extubation, with no significant difference. b) The result of intra-operative wake-up test showed that, there was no significant difference in the sedative effect and the time of awaking between the two groups. c) For emergence time and extubation time, compared with the sufentanil-propofol group, emergence time and extubation time were significantly shorter than those in the remifentanil-propofol group. d) For side effects, there was no significant difference in side effects (such as post-operative nausea, vomiting, respiratory depression, restlessness, chills and hypotension) between the two groups. And e) for post-operative pain, compared with the remifentanil-propofol group, post-operative 1-h and 2-h VAS were lower and the number of who need additional analgesic drugs within 24 h after operation was less in the sufentanil-propofol group, with significant differences. Both groups used the similar dosage of propofol with no significant difference. Conclusion Compared with the remifentanil-propofol group, hemodynamics changes in the sufentanil-propofol group is steadier after induction and during intubation. Patients in the sufentanil-propofol group are better in postoperative awakening quality. But they are alike in the incidence of side effects and propofol dosage.
目的 观察帕瑞昔布钠与舒芬太尼用于无痛胃镜麻醉的安全性和有效性及对患者满意度的影响，为提高临床无痛胃镜麻醉的安全性和舒适性提供依据。 方法 采取前瞻性随机双盲对照方法，纳入2011年8月－12月拟行无痛胃镜检查的患者120例，随机分为3组。患者于胃镜检查开始前口服利多卡因胶浆，静脉注射舒芬太尼、帕瑞昔布钠或生理盐水10 mL。检查时静脉注射异丙酚。记录患者检查过程中生命体征、异丙酚使用量、诱导时间、检查时间、苏醒时间、医师以及患者满意度、舒适度等数据。 结果 舒芬太尼组检查中各时间点平均动脉压明显低于帕瑞昔布组（P=0.029），血管活性药物用量明显高于帕瑞昔布组（P=0.036）。医师以及患者满意度舒芬太尼组和帕瑞昔布组相当，且均高于对照组（P＜0.05）。除呛咳外，帕瑞昔布组其他不良反应的发生率明显低于舒芬太尼组（P＜0.05）。 结论 实施无痛胃镜检查前15 min静脉注射帕瑞昔布钠0.6 mg/kg或舒芬太尼0.10 μg/kg均可以获得满意的麻醉效果，麻醉医师和患者及家属的满意度明显增高，且帕瑞昔布对呼吸和循环的影响更小，安全性更高。
目的 评价舒芬太尼复合艾司洛尔对腹腔镜胆囊切除术二氧化碳气腹期间心血管反应和脑电双频指数（BIS）的影响。 方法 2010年1月－2011年12月间，选择美国麻醉医师协会分级Ⅰ～Ⅱ级择期腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者90例，随机分为芬太尼组（A组）、舒芬太尼组(B组）和舒芬太尼+艾司洛尔组（C组）。A组用芬太尼4 μg/kg，B、C组用舒芬太尼0.6 μg/kg麻醉诱导后气管插管，机械通气；C组在气腹前加用艾司洛尔。3组均常规静脉注射咪达唑仑0.1 mg/kg、丙泊酚2 mg/kg和维库溴铵0.1 mg/kg。分别记录各组在气腹前（T1）、气腹30 s（T2）、气腹5 min（T3）、气腹15 min（T4）时的收缩压、舒张压、平均动脉压、心率、血氧饱和度和BIS值。 结果 T1时C组收缩压、舒张压、心率、BIS值最低，各组间差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；T2、T3、T4时A组收缩压、舒张压、心率、BIS明显增加，B组有所上升，ⅢC组各时段变化不明显。A组与B组、B组与C组间差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。 结论 舒芬太尼复合艾司洛尔能更好地预防腹腔镜胆囊切除术二氧化碳气腹期间心血管反应和抑制BIS的增加。
【摘要】 目的 观察依托咪酯乳剂复合舒芬太尼用于全麻下喉罩置入的血流动力学变化。 方法 选择2009年4月-2010年2月间，46例需全麻手术、适合使用喉罩，美国麻醉医师协会（ASA）Ⅰ～Ⅱ级，年龄18～60岁的患者，随机分为两组:依托咪酯乳剂组（E组）23 例，静脉推注咪达唑仑0.05 mg/kg，依托咪酯乳剂0.3 mg/kg；依托咪酯乳剂+舒芬太尼组（ES组）23 例，静脉推注咪达唑仑0.05 mg/kg，依托咪酯乳剂0.15 mg/kg，加舒芬太尼0.5 mg/kg，诱导后置入喉罩，记录患者诱导前、用药后1 min、喉罩置入后1 min的心率（HR）、平均动脉压（MAP）以及评估喉罩置入条件的6项指标（张口困难分级、置入喉罩困难分级、舌咽反射、干咳干呕反射、肢动反应及喉痉挛分级），同时记录呼吸暂停时间。 结果 ES组能提供更好的喉罩置入条件，且能减少舌咽反射和肢体反应， 更能保证喉罩置入时血流动力学的稳定。 结论 依托咪酯乳剂复合舒芬太尼能为全麻喉罩置入时提供更好的条件，且能保证更好的血流动力学稳定。【Abstract】 Objective To investigate the hemodynamics changes when etomidate combined with sufentanil was applied for laryngeal mask airway insertion under the general anaesthesia. Methods From April 2009 to February 2010, 46 patients requiring general anesthesia using laryngeal mask airway (LMA) (American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)Ⅰ-Ⅱ) aged 18-60 were randomly divided into two groups: 23 in etomidate emulsion group (group E) underwent the intravenous injection with midazolm (0.3 mg/kg) and etomidate (0.05 mg/kg); 23 in etomidate emulsion + sufentanil group (group ES) underwent the intravenous injection with etomidate (0.15 mg/kg), midazolm (0.05 mg/kg), and sufentanil 0.5 mg/kg. The patients were evaluated by six indexes of LMA insertion (mouth opening, swallowing reflex, cough reflex,vomiting reflex, body motion, and laryngospasm classification). After the anesthesia induction, LMA was inserted. The blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded before anesthesia induction one minute after the injection and one minute after LMA insertion. Meanwhile, the apnea time was recorded. Results Compared with group E, group ES offered better anesthesia for LMA insertion, less swallowing reflex and body motion, and more stable haemodynamics. Conclusion Etomidate combined with sufentanil provides good condition for LMA insertion under the general anaesthesia with steady haemodynamics.
目的:观察舒芬太尼复合异丙酚自控镇静镇痛在结肠镜检查中的效果及不良反应,从而探讨该方法的安全性和有效性。方法:行无痛纤维结肠镜检查的患者60例,随机分为两组:自控镇痛/镇静组和静脉复合全麻醉组,每组30例。自控镇痛/镇静组首先缓慢静脉注射舒芬太尼0.12 μg/kg,随之接电子自控镇痛泵,负荷量设定为0.5 mg/kg,以4 mg/kg·h的速度持续泵入异丙酚(10 mg/mL),术中按压1次自控手柄可快速推注异丙酚1 mL。静脉复合全麻醉组首先静脉缓慢推注芬太尼1 μg/kg,咪唑安定0.02 mg/kg, 2 min后缓慢推注异丙酚0.8～1 mg/kg。术中间断给予异丙酚以维持听觉诱发电位指数(AAI)于30～40之间。结果:静脉复合全麻醉组的MAP较检查前明显下降且较自控镇痛/镇静组下降更为明显且具有统计学意义(Plt;0.05)。自控镇痛/镇静组的呼吸频率较静脉复合全麻醉组下降明显且在T3时间点具有统计学意义(Plt;0.05)。自控镇痛/镇静组患者OAA/S评分达5分和Aldrete评分达9分的时间均较静脉复合全麻醉组明显缩短(1.4±1.3 VS 3.9±1.7和 2.9±1.7 VS 5.7±1.7)(Plt;0.05)。两组的内镜医师和患者满意度评分无统计学差异(P＞0.05)。结论:自控镇静镇痛能够比传统的静脉全身麻醉提供更良好的循环系统稳定性,更迅速的麻醉后恢复,是结肠镜检查镇静镇痛的理想和安全方法。
目的 观察右美托咪啶复合舒芬太尼用于经腹子宫全切术后患者自控静脉镇痛（PCIA）的效果。 方法 2011年3月－2012年6月选择经腹子宫全切术患者90例，年龄39～68岁，体重48～72 kg，美国麻醉医师协会分级Ⅰ～Ⅱ级。采用随机数字表法，将患者随机分为3组，每组各30例。于手术结束即刻行PCIA。对照组（C组）采用舒芬太尼150 μg+昂丹司琼12 mg；S1组采用右美托咪定200 μg+舒芬太尼100 μg+昂丹司琼12 mg；S2组采用右美托咪定200 μg+舒芬太尼150 μg+昂丹司琼12 mg。3组均用生理盐水稀释至100 mL，负荷剂量均为舒芬太尼0.1 μg/kg，静脉镇痛泵背景输注速度2 mL/h，自控给药剂量0.5 mL，锁定时间15 min。记录术后6、12、24和48 h Ramsay镇静评分和视觉模拟评分（VAS），记录不良反应发生情况和患者对术后镇痛的满意度。 结果 3组患者均能获得较好的镇痛效果。其中C组VAS评分较低，但恶心、呕吐、皮肤瘙痒发生率升高；与C组相比，Sl组和S2组Ramsay镇静评分升高，恶心、呕吐、皮肤瘙痒发生率降低，患者满意度升高。S1组患者满意度最高；S2组VAS评分最低。3组均未发生心动过缓、低血压、过度镇静和呼吸抑制。 结论 右美托咪啶可增加经腹子宫全切术患者术后舒芬太尼自控静脉镇痛的效果，提高患者满意度，降低不良反应。
ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of sufentanil versus fentanyl used in patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) after cesarean section.MethodsAn online search of computerized searches of the database of MEDLINE (OVID), Web of Science, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and SinoMed were conducted. Randomized controlled trials published since the inceptions of these databases until April 1st 2018, involving the comparison of sufentanil versus fentanyl for PCIA after cesarean section were included. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was conducted using the RevMan 5.1 software.ResultsA total of 19 studies were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with the fentanyl group, the sufentanil group had statistically significant lower VAS scores at 4-hour (MD=–0.99, 95%CI –1.03 to –0.95, P<0.001), 8-hour (MD=–0.30, 95%CI –0.40 to –0.21, P<0.001), 12-hour (MD=–0.54, 95%CI –0.62 to –0.46, P<0.001) and 24-hour (MD=–0.35, 95%CI –0.41 to –0.28, P<0.001); statistically significant higher Ramsay scores at 4-hour (MD=0.72, 95%CI 0.66 to 0.78, P<0.001), 8-hour (MD=0.93, 95%CI 0.86 to 1.00, P<0.001), 12-hour (MD=0.98, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.05, P<0.001), 24-hour (MD=0.07, 95%CI 0.03 to 0.11, P=0.000 5), 48-hour (MD=0.05, 95%CI 0.03 to 0.08, P<0.000 1). As for the adverse reactions, sufentanil group had lower risks of having nausea and vomiting (RR=0.25, 95%CI 0.19 to 0.31, P<0.001), pruritus (RR=0.41, 95%CI 0.30 to 0.57, P<0.001), dizziness (RR=0.27, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.44, P<0.001) and urinary retention (RR=0.35, 95%CI (0.15, 0.82), P=0.02).ConclusionsThe current evidence shows that, sufentanil has better analgesia and sedative effects, and less risks of adverse reactions for safer clinical use.
【摘要】 目的 比较舒芬太尼与等效剂量芬太尼在髋关节置换术后患者硬膜外镇痛的临床效果。 方法 2006年11月-2008年9月收治的50例硬膜外麻醉下髋关节置换术患者，随机分为两组（n=25）。芬太尼组（A组）:芬太尼0.75 mg加0.894%甲磺酸哌卡因20 mL加生理盐水至100 mL；舒芬太尼组（B组），舒芬太尼75 μg加0.894%甲磺酸哌卡因20 mL加生理盐水至100 mL硬膜外镇痛。其中，A组患者于手术结束时，静脉滴注格拉司琼3 mg。持续剂量2 mL/h，单次给药量（PCA）0.5 mL/次，锁定时间15 min。观察两组的镇痛效果，恶心、呕吐次数，记录脉搏血氧饱和度、心率、呼吸的变化。 结果 镇痛泵开机后，B组各时段镇静评分，2分以上者明显多于A组，镇痛评分明显低于A组，有统计学意义（Plt;0.05），两组术后恶心、呕吐发生率都较低，组间差异无统计学意义（Pgt;0.05）。两组4、12、24 h的呼吸频率和脉搏血氧饱和度差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05），但48 h的呼吸频率和脉搏血氧饱和度无统计学意义（Pgt;0.05）。 结论 在等效剂量下，髋关节置换术后患者硬膜外镇痛，舒芬太尼明显优于芬太尼。【Abstract】 Objective To compare the clinical effect of epidural analgesia with sufentanil and fentanyl in an equivalent dose after hip replacement. Methods From December 2006 to September 2008, fifty cases of epidural anesthesia after hip replacement were randomly divided into two groups, each group had 25 cases. Group A (fentanyl group): fentanyl mesylate 0.75 mg+0.894% ropivacaine 20 mL+0.9% sodium chloride solution to 100 mL; group B (sufentanil group): sufentanil 75 μg+0.894% ropivacaine mesylate 20 mL+0.9% sodium chloride solution to 100 mL epidural analgesia. Patients in group A received intravenous infusion of granisetron 3 mg at the end of surgery. Continuous dose was 2 mL/h, with the volume of single dose (PCA) 0.5 mL per time and lockout time of 15 minutes. The analgesic effect, nausea, and vomiting frequency were observed, and the pulse oxygen saturation, heart rate, and breathing changes were recorded. Results After boot analgesia, S sedation scores for each phase and pain score in group B were significantly different compared with those in group A (Plt;0.05). Both groups had low incidence of nausea and vomiting, and the difference was not statistically significant (Pgt;0.05). The difference of respiratory rate and pulse oxygen saturation at 4 h, 12 h, 24 h was statistically significant between two groups (Plt;0.05), but at 48 h the difference was not significant (Pgt;0.05). Conclusion In the equivalent dose, epidural analgesia with sufentanil in the patients with hip replacement is superior to fentanyl.