[1]代涛,李延仓,娄季鹤,等.不同镇痛镇静模式在严重烧伤患者回收期应用效果分析[J].新乡医学院学报,2020,37(1):044-47.[doi:10.7683/xxyxyxb.2020.01.011]
　DAI Tao,LI Yancang,LOU Jihe,et al.Effect of different analgesia sedation modes in the recovery period of severe burn patients[J].Journal of Xinxiang Medical University,2020,37(1):044-47.[doi:10.7683/xxyxyxb.2020.01.011]
点击复制

不同镇痛镇静模式在严重烧伤患者回收期应用效果分析
分享到：

《新乡医学院学报》[ISSN:1004-7239/CN:41-1186/R]

卷:
37
期数:
2020年1
页码:
044-47
栏目:
临床研究
出版日期:
2020-01-05

文章信息/Info

Title:
Effect of different analgesia sedation modes in the recovery period of severe burn patients
作者:
代涛1;  李延仓2;  娄季鹤2;  夏成德2;  王磊2;  张建2;  赵孝开2;  吕涛2;  李晓亮2;  裴会乐1;  郭继龙1 ; 刘冰2
(1.河南科技大学第三附属医院烧伤科，河南　洛阳　471000；2.郑州市第一人民医院烧伤科，河南　郑州　450004)
Author(s):
DAI Tao1; LI Yancang2; LOU Jihe2; XIA Chengde2; WANG Lei2; ZHANG Jian2; ZHAO Xiaokai2; LYU Tao2; LI Xiaoliang2; PEI Huile1; GUO Jilong1; LIU Bing2
(1.Department of Burns Surgery,the Third Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Science and Technology,Luoyang 471003,Henan Province,China;2.Department of Burns Surgery,the First People′s Hospital of Zhengzhou,Zhengzhou 450004,Henan Province,China)
关键词:
严重烧伤; 回收期; 舒芬太尼; 镇痛; 烧伤重症监护室
Keywords:
severe burns; recovery period; sufentanil; analgesia; burn intensive care unit
分类号:
R453；R644
DOI:
10.7683/xxyxyxb.2020.01.011
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的　比较右美托咪定与咪达唑仑分别联合舒芬太尼在严重烧伤患者回收期的镇痛镇静效果。方法　选择2016年1月至2018年12月河南科技大学第三附属医院收治的严重烧伤患者84例为研究对象。将患者分为右美托咪定组和咪达唑仑组，每组42例。2组患者均给予舒芬太尼进行镇痛，进入回收期后右美托咪定组患者给予右美托咪定进行镇静，咪达唑仑组患者给予咪达唑仑进行镇静。比较2组患者进入回收期后第1、3、5、7、9天重症监护室疼痛观察工具(CPOT)评分和镇静-躁动评分（SAS）；比较2组患者在烧伤重症监护室（BICU）住院时间以及谵妄和不良反应发生率。结果　2组患者在回收期后各时间点的镇痛评分比较差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05 ）。2组患者进入回收期后第1天SAS评分比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05 ），其余各时间点咪达唑仑组患者SAS评分均显著高于右美托咪定组（P＜0.05）。右美托咪定组和咪达唑仑患者在BICU住院时间分别为（15.81± 5.02）、（20.95±4.94）d，右美托咪定组患者在BICU住院时间显著短于咪达唑仑组（t=－4.730，P＜0.05）。右美托咪定组和咪达唑仑组患者谵妄发生率分别为9.52%（4/42）、30.95%（13/42），不良反应发生率分别为35.71%（15/42）、59.52%（25/42）；右美托咪定组患者谵妄及不良反应发生率均显著低于咪达唑仑组（χ2=5.972、4.773，P＜0.05）。结论　右美托咪定与咪达唑仑分别联合舒芬太尼对严重烧伤患者均有较好的镇痛镇静效果，对于回收期患者，右美托咪定的镇静效果优于咪达唑仑，且患者谵妄及不良反应发生率低。
Abstract:
Objective　To compare the effect of analgesia and sedation of dexmedetomidine and midazolam combined with sufentanil in severe burn patients during the recovery period.Methods　Eighty-four severe burn patients admitted to the Third Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Science and Technology from January 2016 to December 2018 were selected as the study objects and were divided into dexmedetomidine group(n=42) and midazolam group(n=42).All patients were given sufentanil for analgesia;based on this,the patients in dexmedetomidine group were given dexmedetomidine for sedation,the patients in midazolam group were given midazolam for sedation.The ritical care pain observation tool (CPOT) score,and sedation-agitation scale (SAS) were compared between the two groups on the 1st,3rd,5th,7th and 9th day after the recovery period;and the length of stay in burn intensive care unit（BICU）,the incidence of delirium and adverse reactions were compared between the two groups.Results　There was no significant difference in the CPOT scores of patients between the two groups (P>0.05).There was no significant difference in SAS scores of patients between the two groups on the first day after the recovery period (P>0.05);the SAS score of patients in midazolam group was significantly higher than that in the dexmedetomidine group at the other time point after the recovery period (P>0.05).The length of stay in BICU of patients in dexmedetomidine group and midazolam group was (15.81±5.02) and (20.95±4.94) days,respectively;the length of stay in BICU of patients in dexmedetomidine group was significantly shorter than that in midazolam group (t=-4.730,P< 0.05).The incidence of delirium of patients in dexmedetomidine group and midazolam group was 9.52%(4/42) and 30.95%(13/42),respectively;the incidence of adverse reactions of patients in dexmedetomidine group and midazolam group was 35.71% (15/42) and 59.52%(25/42),respectively;the incidences of delirium and adverse reactions of patients in dexmedetomidine group were significantly lower than those in the midazolam group (χ2=5.972,4.773;P＜0.05）.Conclusions　Both dexmedetomidine and midazolam combined with sufentanil have better analgesic and sedative effect on severe burn patients.For patients in recovery period,dexmedetomidine has better sedative effect than midazolam,and the incidence of delirium and adverse reactions is low.

参考文献/References:

［1］　《中华烧伤杂志》编辑委员会.成人烧伤疼痛管理指南(2013版)［J］.中华烧伤杂志,2013,29(3):225-231.
［2］　段二云,角述兰.舒芬太尼用于烧伤患者镇痛的研究进展［J］.医学综述,2018，24(5):992-996.
［3］　黄跃生.烧伤外科学［M］.北京：科学技术文献出版社,2010:105-133.
［3］　马朋林,王宇,席修明,等.重症加强治疗病房清醒患者不良住院经历调查分析［J］.中华危重病急救医学,2008,20(9):553-557.
［4］　李青栋,万献尧,谷春梅,等.中文版ICU患者疼痛观察工具在机械通气患者应用的信度与效度［J］.中华内科杂志,2012,51(8):642-643.
［5］　BARR J,FRASER G L,PUNTILLO K,et al.Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain,agitation,and delirium in adult patients in the Intensive Care Unit:executive summary［J］.Critical Care Medicine,2013,41(1):263-306.
［6］　马朋林,王宇,席修明,等.重症加强治疗病房清醒患者不良住院经历调查分析［J］.中华危重病急救医学,2008,20(9):553-557.
［7］　MURAT G, EFIKA S,YASEMIN G,et al.Comparison of effects of ketamine,ketamine-dexmedetomidine and ketamine-midazolam on dressing changes of burn patients［J］.J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol,2011,27(2):220-224.
［8］　魏小艳,仇金鹏.舒芬太尼与布桂嗪对烧伤削痂植皮术术后镇痛效果及其对肿瘤坏死因子的影响［J］.中国实验诊断学,2019，23(3)：499-500.
［9］　李尚坤,闵苏,吴彬,等.地佐辛复合舒芬太尼在烧伤患者术后静脉自控镇痛中的应用［J］.中华烧伤杂志,2015,31(1)：48-51.
［10］　BUTTON D ,HOFER C .Clinical evaluation of the FloTrac/Vigileo system and two established methods for continuous cardiac output monitoring in patients undergoing cardiac surgery［J］.Br J Anaesth,2007,99(3):329-336.
［11］　李玉香,唐洪泰,周万芳,等.稀释氧化亚氮吸入在烧伤患者创面换药中及换药后的镇痛镇静研究［J］.中华烧伤杂志,2013,29(6):537-540.
［12］　李尚坤,闵苏,吴彬,等.地佐辛复合舒芬太尼在烧伤患者术后静脉自控镇痛中的应用［J］.中华烧伤杂志,2015,31(1):48-51.
［13］　BRUSSELAERS N ,MONSTREY S ,VOGELAERS D ,et al.Severe burn injury in europe:a systematic review of the incidence,etiology,morbidity,and mortality［J］.Critical Care,2010,14(5):188-200.
［14］　岑相如,黎达锋,岑俏丹,等.右美托咪定联合舒芬太尼用于小儿大面积烧伤削痂植皮术后镇痛的临床研究［J］.国际医药卫生导报,2017,27(7):1049-1051.
［15］　张元文,王勇,徐军,等.咪达唑仑联合舒芬太尼持续静脉泵入用于重症小儿烧伤镇静镇痛的临床观察［J］.中国急救复苏与灾害医学杂志,2016,11(11):1086-1088.
［16］　刘宝珍,宋子贤,张艳红,等.术后多模式镇痛的研究进展［J］.河北医药,2015,37(19):2990-2994.
［17］　杨波,赵玉良,周文博,等.右美托咪定与咪达唑仑在ICU长期机械通气患者中镇静效果及安全性对照研究［J］.中国药物警戒,2018,15(3):140-143.
［18］　张宝成,钟志越,李宏治,等.右美托咪定与咪达唑仑对危重病患者镇静效果的比较［J］.中国临床医学,2012,19(3):290-292.
［19］　郝雪莲,孙媛,郭琼梅,等.右美托咪定对舒芬太尼用于小儿大面积烧伤削痂植皮术后镇痛的改良作用［J］.中华麻醉学杂志,2016,36(4):456-458.

更新日期/Last Update: 2022-03-15