中国医科大学学报  2024, Vol. 53 Issue (1): 39-45

文章信息

陈宁, 宋丹丹, 裘治慧, 徐明, 崔波, 刁玉刚
CHEN Ning, SONG Dandan, QIU Zhihui, XU Ming, CUI Bo, DIAO Yugang
静脉输注右美托咪定联合靶控输注瑞芬太尼在老年患者ERCP麻醉中的临床应用
Clinical application of intravenous dexmedetomidine combined with target-controlled remifentanil in anesthesia of ERCP surgery in older adult patients
中国医科大学学报, 2024, 53(1): 39-45
Journal of China Medical University, 2024, 53(1): 39-45

文章历史

收稿日期:2023-03-21
网络出版时间:2024-01-04 20:27:48
静脉输注右美托咪定联合靶控输注瑞芬太尼在老年患者ERCP麻醉中的临床应用
北部战区总医院麻醉科, 沈阳 110016
摘要目的 探讨静脉输注右美托咪定(Dex)联合靶控输注瑞芬太尼在老年患者经内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)麻醉中的安全性及可行性。方法 选择2021年1月至8月择期监测麻醉(MAC)下行ERCP的老年患者(年龄≥65岁)98例,随机分为丙泊酚-瑞芬太尼(TRP)组和Dex-瑞芬太尼(TRD)组。TRP组患者麻醉采用靶控输注丙泊酚-瑞芬太尼,TRD组患者麻醉采用静脉输注Dex联合靶控输注瑞芬太尼,2组均采用非气管插管的MAC麻醉。观察并记录患者在麻醉诱导前(T0)、麻醉诱导后即刻(T1)、进镜时(T2)、十二指肠乳头插管时(T3)、退镜时(T4)、留置鼻胆管结束时(T5)平均动脉压(MAP)、心率(HR)、脉博氧饱和度(SpO2)、呼吸频率(RR)、脑电双频指数(BIS)。于不同时点(术前、麻醉诱导后每隔15 min和苏醒即刻)采动脉血行血气分析,记录动脉血氧分压(PaO2)、动脉二氧化碳分压(PaCO2)、瑞芬太尼靶控输注浓度、手术时间、苏醒时间(停止输注瑞芬太尼至意识恢复时间)、麻醉恢复时间(意识恢复至离开手术室时间)、术中体动、离室Aldrete评分、术后60 min VAS评分、术后不良反应,以及麻醉医生、内镜医生和患者的满意度。结果 2组患者的年龄、性别、BMI、ASA分级等一般资料均无统计学差异(P > 0.05)。与TRP组比较,TRD组MAP在T1和T3时点增高(P < 0.05),HR在T1、T2、T3、T4时点降低,SpO2、RR在T1、T2、T3、T4时点增高,BIS在T2、T3、T4、T5时点增高,托下颌次数和低氧血症发生率降低,离室Aldrete评分增高,术后60 min VAS评分降低,麻醉医生、内镜医生及患者满意度增高,差异均有统计学意义(均P < 0.05)。2组患者各时点PaO2、PaCO2、靶控输注瑞芬太尼浓度、手术时间、苏醒时间、麻醉恢复时间、术后不良反应发生率无统计学差异。结论 与靶控输注丙泊酚-瑞芬太尼相比,静脉输注Dex联合靶控输注瑞芬太尼可降低老年患者在ERCP手术中低氧血症的发生率,麻醉方案能够满足ERCP手术的麻醉需求,安全可行。
关键词靶控输注    瑞芬太尼    丙泊酚    右美托咪定    内镜逆行胰胆管造影术    老年    
Clinical application of intravenous dexmedetomidine combined with target-controlled remifentanil in anesthesia of ERCP surgery in older adult patients
Department of Anesthesiology, Northern Theater Command General Hospital, Shenyang 110016, China
Abstract: Objective To explore the safety and feasibility of intravenous dexmedetomidine (Dex) combined with targeted infusion of remifentanil in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) anesthesia in older adult patients. Methods From January to August 2021, 98 older adult patients (≥ 65 years old) undergoing ERCP were randomly divided into TRP and TRD groups. The TRP group was anesthetized with target-controlled infusion of propofol and remifentanil and the TRD group was treated with Dex combined with target-controlled infusion of remifentanil. mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), electrocardiogram (ECG), respiratory rate (RR), pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2), bispectral index (BIS) before anesthesia induction (T0), immediately after induction of anesthesia (T1), endoscopic introduction (T2), duodenal papilla intubation (T3), endoscopy withdrawal (T4) and postoperative awakening (T5) were observed. Arterial blood gas analysis at different time points (T0, every 15 min after anesthesia induction and T5), PaO2, and PaCO2, were recorded at the above mentioned time points; and the remifentanil concentration in target-controlled infusion, operation time, recovery time (from infusion of remifentanil to consciousness recovery), anesthesia recovery time (from consciousness recovery to leaving the operating room), intraoperative body movement, Aldrete scores out of the room, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at 60 min after surgery, occurrence of postoperative adverse reactions, as well as the satisfaction of anesthesiologists, endoscopists, and patients were recorded. Results Compared with the TRP group, MAP at T1 and T3, SpO2 and RR at T1, T2, T3, and T4, and BIS at T2, T3, T4, and T5 increased, whereas HR at T1, T2, T3, and T4 decreased; the number of mandibular rests, incidence of hypoxemia, Aldrete score, and satisfaction increased, whereas the VAS score at 60 min after surgery decreased in the TRD group (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative adverse reactions, PaO2 and PaCO2, target-controlled infusion remifentanil concentration, operation time, recovery time, and anesthesia recovery time between the two groups. Conclusion Compared with the target-controlled infusion of propofol-remifentanil, intravenous infusion of Dex combined with target-controlled infusion of remifentanil can reduce the incidence of hypoxemia in older adult patients during ERCP surgery, and the anesthesia regimen can meet the anesthesia needs of ERCP surgery, which is safe and feasible.

经内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography,ERCP)具有创伤小、易操作、用时短、疗效确切等特点,临床上已大量用于胰胆管相关疾病的诊断和治疗[1]。监测麻醉(monitoring anesthesia care,MAC)具有麻醉诱导快、苏醒快、患者舒适度高、手术周转快等优势,广泛应用于ERCP麻醉[2-3]。ERCP镇静期间低氧血症的发生率为16.2%~39.2%,尤其是老年患者常有心肺并存疾病,严重影响手术操作和患者安全[4]。即使在严密的监护下,呼吸抑制和低氧血症仍是ERCP手术麻醉最大的安全隐患。本研究通过比较2种不同的临床镇静镇痛方案,探讨老年患者ERCP术中个体化的最优麻醉策略,客观评价其安全性及可行性。

1 材料与方法 1.1 一般资料

选取2021年1月至8月期间于我院择期MAC麻醉下行ERCP的老年患者98例,并随机分为丙泊酚-瑞芬太尼组(TRP组)和右美托咪定(dexmedetomidine,Dex)-瑞芬太尼组(TRD组),每组49例。纳入标准:年龄≥65岁;ASAⅡ~Ⅲ级;体质量指数(body mass index,BMI) < 30 kg/m2。排除标准:严重心血管、呼吸、内分泌系统及精神疾病;药物酒精依赖史;肝肾功能严重障碍;困难气道、鼾症患者;6个月内接受其他临床试验者。本研究获得医院伦理委员会审查批准[伦审Y(2021)069号],通过临床试验中心注册(ChiCTR2200058413)。所有患者及其家属签署知情同意书。

1.2 术前准备

入室后建立外周静脉通路,行桡动脉穿刺置管,监测有平均动脉压(mean arterial pressure,MAP)、心率(heart rate,HR)、心电图(electrocardiogram,ECG)、呼吸频率(respiratory rate,RR)、脉博氧饱和度(pulse oxygen saturation,SpO2)、脑电双频指数(bispectral index,BIS);采动脉血行血气分析。麻醉诱导前鼻导管预吸氧5 L/min,持续3 min。

1.3 麻醉方案

TRP组:麻醉诱导,丙泊酚血浆药物浓度初始靶浓度设定为2~3 μg/mL;瑞芬太尼血浆药物浓度初始靶浓度设定为0.4~0.6 ng/mL。待睫毛反射消失,镇静水平MOAA/S评分 < 3分、BIS≤70时,置入十二指肠镜。麻醉维持,丙泊酚血浆药物浓度维持3~4 μg/mL;瑞芬太尼血浆药物浓度维持1 ng/mL。术中根据MOAA/S评分、BIS值、呼吸抑制情况和疼痛反应及时调整目标靶浓度。丙泊酚依次递减/增0.1 μg/mL,瑞芬太尼递减/增0.1 ng/mL。退镜时,停止靶控输注丙泊酚;留置鼻胆管结束时,停止靶控输注瑞芬太尼。

TRD组:麻醉诱导持续静脉输注Dex负荷量1 μg/kg,泵注10 min,瑞芬太尼血浆药物浓度初始靶浓度设定为0.4~0.6 ng/mL。待睫毛反射消失,镇静水平MOAA/S评分 < 3分、BIS≤70时,置入十二指肠境。麻醉维持,持续静脉输注Dex 0.4~0.8 μg·kg-1·h-1,瑞芬太尼血浆药物浓度维持1 ng/mL。术中根据MOAA/S评分、BIS值、呼吸抑制情况和疼痛反应及时调整目标靶浓度,Dex依次递减/增0.1 μg·kg-1·h-1,瑞芬太尼递减/增0.1 ng/mL。退镜时,停止输注Dex;留置鼻胆管结束时,停止靶控输注瑞芬太尼。

如术中麻醉深度不能满足手术要求,或患者出现体动、呛咳,追加丙泊酚0.5 mg/kg。出现亚临床低氧血症(SpO2 < 95%)时,可密切观察;当出现低氧血症(SpO2为75%~89%且 < 60 s)时,将鼻导管氧流量从5 L/min提高至8 L/min,同时抬下颌开放气道;当出现严重低氧血症(SpO2 < 75%或SpO2 < 90%且 > 60 s),则应立即采用面罩正压通气,必要时嘱内镜医生退镜,行气管内插管。

1.4 观察指标

记录2组患者在麻醉诱导前(T0)、诱导后即刻(T1)、进镜(T2)、十二指肠乳头插管(T3)、退镜(T4)、术后苏醒(T5)等不同时点的MAP、HR、SpO2、RR、BIS值及瑞芬太尼靶控输注浓度,低氧血症发生程度(亚临床低氧血症、轻度低氧血症、重度低氧血症)及次数。于不同时点(包括T0、诱导后每隔15 min、T5),采集动脉血行血气分析,记录动脉血氧分压(partial pressure of oxygen,PaO2)、动脉血二氧化碳分压(partial pressure of carbon dioxide,PaCO2)数值。记录2组患者手术时间、麻醉苏醒时间(停止输注瑞芬太尼至意识恢复)、麻醉恢复时间(意识恢复至离开手术室)、Aldrete出室评分和术后60 min视觉模拟量表(visual analogue scale,VAS)评分。记录2组患者术中体动、呛咳发生情况及术后咽部不适、恶心呕吐等不良反应。记录麻醉医生、内镜医生及患者的满意度。

1.5 统计学分析

采用SPSS 25.0软件进行统计学分析。计量资料采用x±s表示,组间差异比较采用t检验。计数资料采用百分数(%)表示,组间差异比较采用χ2检验。组间等级资料差异比较采用Mann Whitney U检验,P < 0.05为差异有统计学意义。

2 结果 2.1 2组患者一般情况比较

2组患者性别、年龄、BMI、ASA分级比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P > 0.05),见表 1

表 1 2组患者一般资料比较(x±s Tab.1 Comparison of the general data between the two groups (x±s)
Group Age(year) BMI(kg/m2 ASA(Ⅱ/Ⅲ)
TRP(n = 49) 69.88±5.09 24.85±1.97 41/8
TRD(n = 49) 71.10±5.85 24.64±2.06 38/11
t 1.101 3 0.515 7 0.587 6
P 0.273 5 0.607 2 0.443 3

2.2 2组患者不同时点MAP、HR比较

与TRP组相比,TRD组患者在T1、T3时点MAP显著增高,HR在T1、T2、T3、T4时点则显著降低,差异均有统计学意义(均P < 0.05)。见表 2

表 2 2组患者不同时点MAP、HR的变化(x±s Tab.2 Changes in different MAP and HR in the two groups (x±s)
Item T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
MAP(mmHg)            
  TRP group(n = 49) 88.57±7.54 84.37±7.48 86.27±7.42 86.25±7.54 88.02±8.03 88.04±7.97
  TRD group(n = 49) 88.98±7.81 87.45±7.67 87.12±8.64 90.35±7.22 90.40±7.28 89.84±7.48
   t 0.264 2.012 0.522 2.079 1.537 1.153
   P 0.792 0.047 0.603 0.040 0.128 0.252
HR(beats/min)            
  TRP group(n = 49) 81.59±8.55 77.69±7.431) 80.04±6.31 81.47±6.87 79.27±6.63 78.96±4.79
  TRD group(n = 49) 83.61±9.43 70.37±9.212) 72.18±7.96 70.55±6.78 76.57±4.80 77.49±5.64
   t 1.111 4.330 5.417 7.919 2.309 1.391
   P 0.269 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.023 0.168
Compared with T0,1)P < 0.05,2)P < 0.01.

2.3 2组患者各时点SpO2、RR、BIS值比较

与TRP组相比,TRD组患者在T2、T3、T4时点RR显著增高,在T2、T3、T4、T5时点BIS值显著升高,在T1、T2、T3、T4时点SpO2显著增高,差异均有统计学意义(均P < 0.05)。见表 3

表 3 2组患者不同时点RR、SpO2、BIS的变化(x±s Tab.3 Changes in RR, SpO2, and BIS between the two groups (x±s)
Group T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
RR(times/min)            
  TRP group(n = 49) 19.33±4.79 16.98±4.181) 16.98±3.852) 17.20±4.341) 17.82±3.35 18.90±2.24
  TRD group(n = 49) 19.18±3.56 17.59±2.801) 18.59±2.99 18.98±3.97 19.10±2.73 19.12±2.01
  t 0.176 0.849 2.312 2.118 2.073 0.512
  P 0.861 0.398 0.023 0.037 0.041 0.610
SpO2(%)            
  TRP group(n = 49) 98.60±1.43 97.43±0.77 97.33±0.84 97.27±0.83 97.20±0.21 98.16±1.20
  TRD group(n = 49) 98.14±1.15 98.23±0.901) 98.30±0.841) 98.27±0.911) 98.83±0.791) 97.76±1.20
  t 1.755 4.728 5.716 5.683 13.950 1.650
  P 0.083 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.102
BIS            
  TRP group(n = 49) 98.50±0.19 64.41±4.97 60.23±5.50 44.79±3.68 52.74±6.62 66.83±10.23
  TRD group(n = 49) 98.55±0.21 61.67±8.58 62.92±4.64 46.35±3.42 56.14±6.44 71.96±9.21
  t 1.236 1.934 2.617 2.174 2.577 2.609
  P 0.220 0.056 0.010 0.032 0.012 0.011
Compared with T0,1)P < 0.05,2)P < 0.01.

2.4 2组患者低氧血症情况比较

与TRP组相比,TRD组患者低氧血症发生率明显降低,抬下颌次数明显减少,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。2组患者术中均未发生严重低氧血症,无改气管插管患者。见表 4

表 4 2组患者术中低氧血症及相关不良反应发生率比较[n(%)] Tab.4 Comparison of the incidence of intraoperative hypoxemia and related adverse effects in the two groups [n (%) ]
Group subclinical hypoxemia hypoxemia Number of jaw lifts
TRP group(n = 49) 3(6.12) 9(18.36) 8(16.33)
TRD group(n = 49) 2(4.08) 1(2.04) 1(2.04)
χ2 < 0.001 7.127 4.009
P 1.000 0.008 0.045

2.5 2组患者不同时点动脉血气PaO2、PaCO2的变化

2组患者在T0、诱导后15 min和30 min及T5时点PaO2、PaCO2比较,差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05),见表 5

表 5 2组患者不同时点PaO2、PaCO2的变化(x±s Tab.5 Changes in PaO2 and PaCO2 in two groups (x±s)
Group T0 15 min after induction 30 min after induction T5
PaO2(mmHg)        
  TRP group(n = 49) 76.34±13.48 208.44±34.88 214.66±39.58 107.86±23.05
  TRD group(n = 49) 78.10±13.20 211.68±42.94 222.16±39.58 109.12±17.17
   t 0.653 0.410 0.937 0.307
   P 0.515 0.683 0.351 0.760
PaCO2(mmHg)        
  TRP group(n = 49) 43.33±6.46 42.12±4.50 41.71±4.65 42.34±4.54
  TRD group(n = 49) 44.44±5.82 43.79±6.06 43.10±5.63 43.85±5.75
   t 0.889 1.549 1.333 1.443
   P 0.930 0.125 0.186 0.152

2.6 2组患者不同时点靶控输注瑞芬太尼的浓度比较

2组各时点瑞芬太尼的靶控输注浓度比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P > 0.05),见表 6

表 6 2组患者不同时点瑞芬太尼的靶控输注浓度(x±s,ng/mL) Tab.6 Target-controlled infusion concentration of intravenous remifentanil in two groups (x±s, ng/mL)
Group T1 T2 T3 T4
TRP group(n = 49) 0.47±0.05 0.55±0.05 1.18±0.12 0.45±0.05
TRD group(n = 49) 0.48±0.05 0.54±0.06 1.15±0.16 0.46±0.04
t 0.990 0.896 1.050 1.093
P 0.325 0.372 0.296 0.277

2.7 2组患者苏醒时间、手术时间、麻醉恢复时间比较

2组患者的苏醒时间、手术时间、麻醉恢复时间比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P > 0.05),见表 7

表 7 2组患者苏醒时间、手术时间、麻醉恢复时间比较(x±s,min) Tab.7 Comparison of wake time, operation duration and anesthesia recovery time between the two groups (x±s, min)
Group Operation duration Wake time Anesthesia recovery time
TRP group(n = 49) 48.92±8.06 8.35±1.24 4.79±0.84
TRD group(n = 49) 49.35±8.70 8.23±1.43 4.89±0.90
t 0.254 0.444 0.569
P 0.800 0.658 0.571

2.8 2组患者离室Aldrete评分和术后VAS评分比较

与TRP组相比,TRD组患者离室Aldrete评分显著增高,而术后60 min VAS评分明显降低,差异均有统计学意义(均P < 0.05),见表 8

表 8 2组患者离室Aldrete评分、术后60 min VAS评分的比较(x±s Tab.8 Comparison of ventricular Aldrete scores and 60 min VAS scores between the two groups (x±s)
Group 60 min VAS score Aldrete score
TRP group(n = 49) 2.51±0.54 8.90±0.40
TRD group(n = 49) 2.16±0.79 9.67±0.48
t 2.560 8.627
P 0.012 < 0.001

2.9 2组患者不良反应情况比较

2组患者术中体动、恶心呕吐、咽部不适、呛咳反应等不良发应发生情况比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P > 0.05),见表 9

表 9 2组患者不良反应比较[n(%)] Tab.9 Comparison of adverse effects in two groups [n (%) ]
Group Intraoperative body movement Choking reaction Nausea and vomitin Pharyngeal discomfort
TRP group(n = 49) 4(8.16) 2(4.08) 4(8.16) 1(2.04)
TRD group(n = 49) 3(6.12) 1(2.04) 2(4.08) 1(2.04)
χ2 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.178 0.510
P 1.000 1.000 0.674 0.475

2.10 2组患者、医师满意度比较

与TRP组相比,TRD组患者满意度、麻醉医师满意度、内镜医师满意度明显增高,差异均有统计学意义(均P < 0.05),见表 10

表 10 麻醉满意度量表结果[n(%)] Tab.10 Anesthesia satisfaction scale results [n (%) ]
Group Satisfied Generally satisfied Dissatisfied
Patient satisfaction      
  TRP group(n = 49) 40(85.7) 9(14.3) 0(0)
  TRD group(n = 49) 47(95.9) 2(4.1) 0(0)
  Z -8.179 - -
  P < 0.001 - -
Endoscopist satisfaction      
  TRP group(n = 49) 35(71.43) 14(28.57) 0(0)
  TRD group(n = 49) 44(85.71) 5(14.29) 0(0)
  Z -7.247 - -
  P < 0.001 - -
Anesthesiologist satisfaction      
  TRP group(n = 49) 36(73.47) 13(26.53) 0(0)
  TRD group(n = 49) 44(89.79) 5(10.20) 0(0)
  Z -7.505 - -
  P < 0.001 - -

3 讨论

目前ERCP手术常用的麻醉方法为气管插管全身麻醉和MAC。KIM等[5]研究发现,不同麻醉方法对ERCP患者结局的影响不同。与MAC镇静麻醉患者相比,插管全身麻醉ERCP患者心血管事件、术后肺炎、急性肾损伤等发生率高,住院时间增加。而MAC麻醉则呼吸系统相关不良事件发生率较高,其主要危险因素是低氧血症。因此,预防低氧血症成为ERCP术中MAC麻醉的管理重点。高龄是发生低氧血症的独立危险因素。文献[6]报道,MAC麻醉不需气管插管,麻醉诱导后易出现呼吸道梗阻,侧俯卧位、手术时间长,均可影响患者呼吸频率及幅度;此外,内镜医生与麻醉医生共用气道等因素增加了气道管理困难。为预防低氧血症,保证气道安全,临床上选择麻醉药物首先要考虑起效迅速、对呼吸影响小、血流动力学稳定的药物,以维持老年患者围手术期呼吸及循环平稳。

精准麻醉方案可提高老年患者ERCP手术的安全性。ERCP手术常用麻醉药物为镇痛药复合镇静药[7]。丙泊酚与阿片类药物合用时,低剂量丙泊酚可引起患者呼吸频率减慢和潮气量降低,甚至可引起呼吸暂停[8]。本研究采用静脉输注Dex联合靶控输注瑞芬太尼,并在BIS引导下个体化给药,不抑制呼吸频率,降低了ERCP术中低氧血症的发生率,减少了术中抬下颌和辅助呼吸的次数,术中可维持较高的SpO2,BIS监测苏醒迅速。有研究[9]显示,Dex复合靶控输注瑞芬太尼不易引起呼吸抑制,应用于老年患者麻醉具有更高的安全性及可行性,与本研究结果一致。

Dex最常见的不良反应是低血压、心动过缓。Dex对血流动力学的影响主要受剂量及给药速度的影响,表现为血压的双相性变化及心率减慢[10-11]。有文献[12-13]报道,Dex引起心动过缓的发生率为14%~16%,近年也有使用推荐剂量的Dex发生心搏骤停的报道,给麻醉及手术带来风险。Dex对心率的影响属于剂量依赖性心率减慢,交感张力下降,迷走神经张力升高[14]。本研究中,TRD组患者随着Dex输注剂量的增加,心率进行性减慢,但未观察到因心率减慢而发生不良事件。有研究[15]认为,Dex连续输注速率 < 0.7 mg·kg-1·h-1时可避免明显的血压降低和心动过缓。丙泊酚有外周血管扩张作用,诱导后可致动脉压一过性下降,尤其老年、女性患者易发生持续性低血压[16]。本研究结果显示,TRD组在诱导后即刻(T1)较TRP组无明显血压下降,整个围手术期血流动力学更稳定。推测更适用于ERCP的危重患者,尤其在感染性休克患者中优势更加明显。Dex的镇静作用属于自然非动眼睡眠,易于唤醒,麻醉偏浅[17]。本研究中,TRD组麻醉偏浅,术中BIS值偏高。TRD组患者术后60 min VAS评分、离室Aldrete评分均较TRD组患者高,患者苏醒迅速,手术舒适度高。

综上所述,BIS监测下静脉输注Dex联合靶控输注瑞芬太尼可为老年ERCP手术患者提供安全有效的麻醉方案,获得较为理想的镇痛镇静效果,降低低氧血症发生率,且不影响患者的苏醒,提高了患者的舒适度、满意度,为ERCP手术的成功和患者的安全提供了保障。

参考文献
[1]
INATOMI O, IMAI T, FUJIMOTO T, et al. Dexmedetomidine is safe and reduces the additional dose of midazolam for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in very elderly patients[J]. BMC Gastroenterol, 2018, 18(1): 1-6. DOI:10.1186/s12876-018-0897-5
[2]
MCCARTY TR, HATHORN KE, CREIGHTON DW, et al. Safety and sedation-associated adverse event reporting among patients under-going endoscopic cholangiopancreatography: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Surg Endosc, 2021, 35(12): 6977-6989. DOI:10.1007/s00464-020-08210-2
[3]
ALTHOFF FC, AGNIHOTRI A, GRABITZ SD, et al. Outcomes after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with general anaesthesia versus sedation[J]. Br J Anaesth, 2021, 126(1): 191-200. DOI:10.1016/j.bja.2020.08.057
[4]
孙庆蕊, 宋丹丹. 内镜面罩与鼻导管吸氧用于高龄患者内镜逆行胰胆管造影监护麻醉的对比观察[J]. 中国内镜杂志, 2021, 27(5): 64-70. DOI:10.12235/E20200048
[5]
KIM SH, BANG S, LEE KY, et al. Comparison of high flow nasal oxy-gen and conventional nasal cannula during gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation in the prone position: a randomized trial[J]. Can J Anesth Can D'anesthésie, 2021, 68(4): 460-466. DOI:10.1007/s12630-020-01883-2
[6]
中华医学会消化内镜学分会麻醉协作组. 常见消化内镜手术麻醉管理专家共识[J]. 临床麻醉学杂志, 2019, 35(2): 9-19. DOI:10.12089/jca.2019.02.019
[7]
OGAWA T, TOMODA T, KATO H, et al. Propofol sedation with a target-controlled infusion pump in elderly patients undergoing ERCP[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 2020, 92(2): 301-307. DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2020.03.002
[8]
EBERL S, KOERS L, VAN HOOFT JE, et al. Sedation with propofol during ERCP: is the combination with esketamine more effective and safer than with alfentanil? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial[J]. Trials, 2017, 18(1): 1-7. DOI:10.1186/s13063-017-2197-8
[9]
LU ZQ, LI WY, CHEN HY, et al. Efficacy of a dexmedetomidine-remifentanil combination compared with a midazolam-remifentanil combination for conscious sedation during therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography: a prospective, randomized, single-blinded preliminary trial[J]. Dig Dis Sci, 2018, 63(6): 1633-1640. DOI:10.1007/s10620-018-5034-3
[10]
HASHIYA M, OKUBO Y, KATO T. Effects of dexmedetomidine on brain and inflammatory outcomes in pediatric cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth, 2023, 37(6): 1013-1020. DOI:10.1053/j.jvca.2023.02.013
[11]
SINGH A, IYER KV, MAITRA S, et al. Ketamine and dexmedetomidine (Keto-dex) or ketamine and propofol (Keto-fol) for procedural sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: which is safer? A randomized clinical trial[J]. Indian J Gastroenterol, 2022, 41(6): 583-590. DOI:10.1007/s12664-022-01291-y
[12]
CHEN M, SUN Y, LI XY, et al. Effectiveness of single loading dose of dexmedetomidine combined with propofol for deep sedation of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in elderly patients: a prospective randomized study[J]. BMC Anesthesiol, 2022, 22(1): 1-6. DOI:10.1186/s12871-022-01630-8
[13]
KORUK S, KORUK I, ARSLAN A, et al. Dexmedetomidine or midazolam in combination with propofol for sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized double blind prospective study[J]. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne, 2020, 15(3): 526-532. DOI:10.5114/wiitm.2020.95066
[14]
PUSHKARNA G, SARANGAL P, PUSHKARNA V, et al. Comparative evaluation of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam as premedication to propofol anesthesia in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography[J]. Anesth Essays Res, 2019, 13(2): 297. DOI:10.4103/aer.aer_62_19
[15]
RAMKIRAN S. BIS targeted propofol sparing effects of dexmedetomidine versus ketamine in outpatient ERCP: a prospective randomised controlled trial[J]. J Clin Diagn Res, 2015, 9(5): UC07-UC12. DOI:10.7860/jcdr/2015/12435.5991
[16]
JUNG D, YANG S, LEE MS, et al. Remifentanil alleviates propofol-induced burst suppression without affecting bispectral index in female patients: a randomized controlled trial[J]. J Clin Med, 2019, 8(8): 1186. DOI:10.3390/jcm8081186
[17]
KUYRUKLUYıLDıZ U, BINICI O, ONK D, et al. Comparison of dexmedetomidine and propofol used for drug-induced sleep endoscopy in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome[J]. Int J Clin Exp Med, 2015, 8(4): 5691-5698.