朱蓉, 熊朝晖, 陈运良, 李蒙新, 王海全. 咪达唑仑联合右美托咪定在感染性休克患者机械通气期间的应用效果[J]. 实用临床医药杂志, 2023, 27(11): 124-127. DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.20223579
引用本文: 朱蓉, 熊朝晖, 陈运良, 李蒙新, 王海全. 咪达唑仑联合右美托咪定在感染性休克患者机械通气期间的应用效果[J]. 实用临床医药杂志, 2023, 27(11): 124-127. DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.20223579
ZHU Rong, XIONG Zhaohui, CHEN Yunliang, LI Mengxin, WANG Haiquan. Effect of midazolam and dexmedetomidine in patients with septic shock during mechanical ventilation[J]. Journal of Clinical Medicine in Practice, 2023, 27(11): 124-127. DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.20223579
Citation: ZHU Rong, XIONG Zhaohui, CHEN Yunliang, LI Mengxin, WANG Haiquan. Effect of midazolam and dexmedetomidine in patients with septic shock during mechanical ventilation[J]. Journal of Clinical Medicine in Practice, 2023, 27(11): 124-127. DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.20223579

咪达唑仑联合右美托咪定在感染性休克患者机械通气期间的应用效果

Effect of midazolam and dexmedetomidine in patients with septic shock during mechanical ventilation

  • 摘要:
    目的 观察咪达唑仑联合右美托咪定在感染性休克患者机械通气期间的应用效果。方法将135例行机械通气治疗的感染性休克患者随机分为咪达唑仑组、右美托咪定组和联合镇静组,每组45例。在感染性休克常规治疗与机械通气基础上,咪达唑仑组、右美托咪定组、联合镇静组分别采用咪达唑仑、右美托咪定、咪达唑仑联合右美托咪定的镇静治疗方案,比较3组患者干预后1、6 h的Ramsay镇静量表(RSS)评分与生命体征、住院相关指标和预后情况。
    结果 干预后1 h, 右美托咪定组RSS评分高于咪达唑仑组、联合镇静组,心率、呼吸频率、平均动脉压(MAP)低于咪达唑仑组、联合镇静组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.025); 干预后6 h, 3组RSS评分、HR、呼吸频率、MAP比较,差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。咪达唑仑组每日唤醒时间长于右美托咪定组、联合镇静组,舒芬太尼镇痛用量大于右美托咪定组、联合镇静组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.025); 3组患者机械通气时间、ICU住院时间、总住院时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。右美托咪定组患者不良记忆发生率高于咪达唑仑组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.025); 3组谵妄、低血压、心动过缓发生率及28 d病死率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。
    结论 咪达唑仑联合右美托咪定是感染性休克患者机械通气期间的良好镇静方案,可缩短每日唤醒时间,降低舒芬太尼镇痛用量,且对血流动力学的影响较小,不良事件发生率低。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective To observe the effect of midazolam and dexmedetomidine in patients with septic shock during mechanical ventilation.
    Methods One hundred and thirty-five patients with septic shock treated by mechanical ventilation were randomly divided into midazolam group(n=45), dexmedetomidine group(n=45) and combined sedation group(n=45). On the basis of conventional treatment for septic shock and mechanical ventilation, patients of the midazolam group, dexmedetomidine group and combined sedation group were treated with midazolam, dexmedetomidine, and midazolam combined with dexmedetomidine, respectively. Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) scores, vital signs, hospitality-related indicators and prognosis were compared 1 h and 6 h after intervention in the three groups.
    Results At 1 h after intervention, the RSS score of the dexmedetomidine group was higher than that of midazolam group and combined sedation group, and the heart rate, respiratory rate and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were lower than those of the midazolam group and the combined sedation group (P < 0.025). There were no significant differences in RSS score, HR, respiratory rate and MAP at 6 h after intervention among the three groups (P > 0.05). The daily wake-up time of the midazolam group was longer than that of the dexmedetomidine group and the combined sedation group, and the analgesic dosage of sufentanil was larger than that of the dexmedetomidine group and the combined sedation group (P < 0.025). There were no significant differences in mechanical ventilation time, ICU stay time and total hospitalization time among three groups (P > 0.05). The incidence of bad memory in the dexmedetomidine group was significantly higher than that in the midazolam group(P < 0.025). There were no significant differences in incidence rates of delirium, hypotension, bradycardia and 28-day mortality among three groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion Midazolam combined with dexmedetomidine is a perfect sedation program for septic shock patients during mechanical ventilation. It could shorten the daily wake-up time and reduce the analgesic dosage of sufentanil, and has less impact on hemodynamics and low incidence of adverse events.

     

/

返回文章
返回