期刊文献+

舒芬太尼对重症监护病房危重患者镇痛/镇静治疗的多中心随机对照临床研究 被引量:35

A multicenter randomized controlled trial of sufentanil for analgesia/sedation in patients in intensive careunit
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的评价舒芬太尼在重症监护病房(ICU)重症患者中的镇痛/镇静效果和安全性,并与芬太尼进行比较。方法采用多中心随机对照临床研究。选择2011年6月至2012年1月河南省11家医院ICU需镇痛的重症成人患者,按各医院编号和进入试验的时间顺序编号,采用信封法随机分为两组,每组300例。剔除持续镇痛时间〈48h及镇痛期间行连续性肾脏替代治疗(CRRT)者,最终纳入的544例患者中舒芬太尼组282例,芬太尼组262例。用药前两组年龄、体质量、急性生理学与慢性健康状况评分系统Ⅱ(APACHEⅡ)评分、格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)差异无统计学意义,具有可比性。镇痛目标为面部表情评分法(FPS)≤2分,若超过镇痛药限定剂量(舒芬太尼0.3μg·kg-1·h-1,芬太尼2μg·kg-1·h-1)仍不能达标,则维持镇痛限定剂量并加用咪达唑仑,满足FPS≤2分或Ramsay3分即为达标。所有病例持续镇痛时间为48-168h。收集相关资料,进行统计学分析。结果①与镇痛前比较,舒芬太尼镇痛后各时间点平均动脉压(MAP)明显下降(F=6.061,P〈O.001),且镇痛后各时间点MAP逐渐接近正常水平;FPS评分显著降低(F=259.389,P〈O.001),Ramsay评分显著升高(F=77.113,P〈O.001);而脉搏血氧饱和度(SpO2)、呼吸频率和心率均无明显改变。②与镇痛前比较,舒芬太尼镇痛后白细胞计数(WBC)、中性粒细胞比例(N)、血小板计数(PLT)、天冬氨酸转氨酶(AST)、肌酐(Cr)、动脉血二氧化碳分压(PaCO2)、血乳酸、血糖、C-反应蛋白(cRP)均明显下降[wBc(X109/L):10.8±4.2比14.2±11.5,F=49.879,P〈O.001;N:0.806±0.104比0,815±0.128,F=5.768,P=O.017;PLT(X109/L):160.4±77.0比166.1±89.0,F=6.568,P=O.011;AST(U/L):61.3±10.1比90.9±26.9,F=6.706,P=O.010;Cr(μmol/L):86.7±71.8比119.6±56.0,F=30.303,P〈0.001;PaC02(mmHg,1mmHg=0.133kPa):39.4±7.2比41.7±22.6,F=4.389,P=0.037;血乳酸(mmol/L):1.9±1.2比2.7±2.5,F=4.883,P=0.028;血糖(mmol/L):8.0±5.4比9.7±7.6,F=9.724,P=O.002;CRP(mg/L):64.8±20.7比114.0±55.9,F=4.883,P=O.028],而红细胞计数(RBC)、凝血酶原时间(PT)、活化部分凝血活酶时间(APTT)、纤维蛋白原(FIB)、凝血酶时间(,rI、)、丙氨酸转氨酶(AIJT)、总胆红素(TBil)、白蛋白(ALB)、总蛋白(TP)、尿素氮(BUN)、动脉血氧分压(PaO:)差异均无统计学意义(均P〉0.05)。③舒芬太尼与5倍剂量芬太尼的效能对比差异无统计学意义(P〉0.05)。舒芬太尼组和芬太尼组使用镇静药物咪达唑仑的比例[18.4%(52/282)比24.8%(65/262),x2=1.151,P=0.283]及镇痛达标率[44.3%(125/282)比48.9%(128/262),x2=0.571,P=0.450]、镇静达标率[16.3%(46/282)比15.3%(40/262),x2=0.066,P=0.798]差异无统计学意义。④两组不良反应比较:舒芬太尼组低血压发生率低于芬太尼组[3.2%(9/282)比6.9%(18/262),x2=3.900,P=0.048],其他常见不良反应如呼吸抑制/暂停、恶心/呕吐和眩晕、瘙痒症、变态反应、心动过缓、代谢反应等发生率差异均无统计学意义;两组无一例发生成瘾性和骨骼肌强直。结论与芬太尼比较,舒芬太尼用于ICU患者的镇痛效能强,生理干扰小,不良反应发生率低。 Objective To evaluate the sedation and analgesia power and security of sufentanil in intensive care unit (ICU), and to compare the effect with fentanyl. Methods A multieenter randomized controlled trial wasconducted. Critical adult patients in ICU from 11 hospitals in Henan Province from June 2011 to January 2012 who needed analgesia based sedation were enrolled. These patients were randomly divided into two groups with 300 cases in each group using the envelope method according to the hospital number and time sequence number of inclusion. Exclusion criteria included the time of analgesia duration 〈 48 hours and who were under continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) treatment during analgesia. 544 cases were enrolled finally, and there were 282 cases in sufentanil group and 262 in fentanyl group. Before using the drug, there was no statistically significant difference in age, body weight, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation lI (APACHE lI ) score, Glasgow coma scale (GCS) between sufentanil group and fentanyl group, and were comparable. The goal of analgesia was faces pain scale (FPS) ≤ 2. If the dosage of sufentanil and fentanyl exceeded the upper limited dose (sufentanil 0.3μg μg·kg-1·h-1, fentanyl 2μg·kg-1·h-1 ) hut FPS could not meet (still 〉2), and maintained the upper limited doses of sufentanil and fentanyl and added midazolam, and FPS ≤2 or Ramsay 3 could meet the standard. The analgesia duration of all cases was 48-168 hours. Related data were collected for statistical analysis. Results ①Compared with the data before the analgesia, the mean arterial pressure (MAP) of sufentanil analgesia after analgesia at different time points were significantly decreased (F=6.061, P〈0.001 ) and dosed to the normal level, FPS at different time point score were decreased significantly after analgesia (F=259.389, P〈0.001), and the changes in pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2), respiratory rate and pulse were not found. ② Compared with before the analgesia, the white blood cell count (WBC), neutrophil percentage (N), platelet count (PLT), aspartate transaminase (AST), ereatinine (Cr), arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2), blood lactic acid, blood sugar, C-reactive protein (CRP) were markedly reduced after sufentanil analgesia [WBC ( x 109/L) : 10.8 ± 4.2 vs. 14.2 ± 11.5, F=49.879, P〈0.001 ; N: 0.806 ± 0.104 vs. 0.815 ± 0.128, F=5.768, P=0.017; PLT ( x109/L) : 160.4 ± 77.0 vs. 166.1 ± 89.0, F=6.568, P=0.011; AST (U/L) : 61.3 ± 10.1 vs. 90.9 ± 26.9, F=6.706, P=0.010; Cr (μmol/L): 86.7 ± 71.8 vs. 119.6 ± 56.0, F=30.303, P〈0.001 ; PaCO2 (mmHg, 1 mmHg=0.133 kPa) : 39.4 ± 7.2 vs. 41.7 ± 22.6, F=4.389, P=0.037; blood lactic acid (mmol/L) : 1.9 ± 1.2 vs. 2.7 ± 2.5, F=4.883, P=0.028; blood sugar (mmol/L) : 8.0 ± 5.4 vs. 9.7 ± 7.6, F=9.724, P=0.002; CRP (mg/L) : 64.8 ± 20.7 vs. 114.0 ± 55.9, F=4.883, P=0.0281. But there were no statistically significant differences in red blood cell count ( RBC ), prothrombin time ( PT ), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), fibrinogen ( FIB ), thrombin time (TF), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), total bilirubin (TBil), albumin (ALB), total protein (TP) blood urea nitrogen (BUN), and arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) before and after sufentanil analgesia (all P〉0.05 ). ③ There was no statistically significant difference in effectiveness of sufentanil and five times dose of fentanyl ( P〉0.05 ). There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of sedative drugs midazolam usage [ 18.4% ( 52/282 ) vs. 24.8% (65/262), X2= 1.151, P=0.283] and the rate of analgesia success I44.3% (125/282) vs. 48.9% (128/262), X2=0.571, P=0.4503 and analgesia success [ 16.3% (46/282) vs. 15.3% (40/262), X2=0.066, P=0.7983]between sufentanil and fentanyl group. ④ Comparison of adverse reactions : the incidence of hypotension in sufentanil group was significantly lower than that in fentanyl group [3.2% (9/282) vs. 6.9% (18/262), X2=3.900, P=0.048], and other common adverse reactions, such as respiratory depression/pause, nausea/vomiting and dizziness, pruritus, allergy, slow heart beat (bradyeardia) and metabolic reactions had no statistically significant difference. Addiction or tetanus of skeletal muscles was not found in both groups. Conclusions Compared with fentanyl, the analgesia efficacy of sufentanil is stronger. Sufentanil has less physiological interference and lower incidence of adverse reactions for ICU patients.
出处 《中华危重病急救医学》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2014年第2期94-100,共7页 Chinese Critical Care Medicine
基金 卫生部国家临床重点专科建设项目(2011-873)
关键词 舒芬太尼 芬太尼 镇痛 镇静 重症患者 Sufentanil Fentanyl Analgesia Sedation Critical patient
  • 相关文献

参考文献31

二级参考文献299

共引文献1042

同被引文献291

引证文献35

二级引证文献198

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部