新青年麻醉论坛

 找回密码
 会员注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

快捷登录

搜索
热搜: 麻醉 视频 中级
楼主: mazuiziji
打印 上一主题 下一主题

一份写给姚尚龙教授的信-产科全麻到底可以用哪些药物?

  [复制链接]
104#
发表于 2015-6-20 08:59:32 | 只看该作者
就此事问各位大佬,那指南有用吗?既然中国目前这样的环境,那弄个什么没用的指南去显示大佬们的高高在上,在中国,大佬们有几个还会完完整整的做完一台手术的麻醉,跟不用说那些麻醉的基本操作了。

友情提示:转载请注意注明作者和出处!!

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报/纠错

103#
发表于 2015-6-19 22:02:53 | 只看该作者
这种情况我们科室也遇见过~所以现在要求剖宫产一定听胎心而且是多普勒的要放出来让手术间所有的人听到~

有奖活动:我为论坛出谋划策!! ←点击查看详情

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报/纠错

102#
发表于 2015-6-19 12:35:25 | 只看该作者
51930573 发表于 2015-6-19 10:01
看到此帖,我只想问下:术后椎管内镇痛该用些什么药?除了局麻药说明书标明了能椎管内使用,其它药都没标明 ...

说的很好!没出事怎么做都行,出事了做的规范也要赔

有奖活动:我为论坛出谋划策!! ←点击查看详情

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报/纠错

101#
发表于 2015-6-19 11:57:38 | 只看该作者
怎么没有姚老板的回复啊,发出来大家看看??

友情提示:转载请注意注明作者和出处!!

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报/纠错

100#
发表于 2015-6-19 10:01:10 | 只看该作者
看到此帖,我只想问下:术后椎管内镇痛该用些什么药?除了局麻药说明书标明了能椎管内使用,其它药都没标明呀;在问个问题,复苏未建立静脉通道的患者,气管内给肾上腺素是否违反说明书?抢救无效时,是否就这点判定医务人员过错?就此案例只能说中国医疗的悲哀,不说了,继续顶着风险干活去!

 小技巧:普通会员如何送鲜花?  (←点击查看详情

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报/纠错

99#
发表于 2015-6-18 23:27:07 | 只看该作者
BMC Anesthesiol. 2015; 15: 63.
Published online 2015 Apr 29. doi:  10.1186/s12871-015-0044-6
PMCID: PMC4419384
Effects of propofol versus thiopental on Apgar scores in newborns and peri-operative outcomes of women undergoing emergency cesarean section: a randomized clinical trial
Janat Tumukunde,corresponding author Dlamini Diana Lomangisi, Ocen Davidson, Andrew Kintu, Ejoku Joseph, and Arthur Kwizera
Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ►
Go to:
Abstract
Background

General and regional anesthesia are the two main techniques used in cesarean section. Regional anesthesia is preferred, but under certain circumstances, such as by patient request and in patients with back deformities, general anesthesia is the only option. Commonly used induction agents include thiopental, ketamine, and propofol, depending on availability and the maternal clinical condition. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of thiopental and propofol on the neonatal Apgar score and maternal recovery time following emergency cesarean section in order to determine the superior agent for mothers and neonates.

Methods

This single-blinded randomized clinical trial included 150 ASA I and II patients block-randomized equally between the two study arms. Pregnant women at term scheduled to undergo cesarean section and their neonates were enrolled. The primary outcomes were the Apgar scores through 10-min postpartum, resuscitation requirement, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit. The secondary outcome was the maternal recovery times.

Results

At 0 min (umbilical cord clamp time), 43 (57.3%) neonates in the propofol group had an Apgar score < 7 compared with 31 (41.3%) neonates in the thiopental group (p = 0.05). The maternal recovery time was shorter in the propofol group than in the thiopental group (25 min vs. 31 min, respectively, p = 0.003).

Conclusion

Apgar scores do not differ significantly whether thiopental or propofol is used for anesthetic induction in women undergoing general anesthesia for an emergency cesarean section.

Trial registration

Pan-African Clinical Trial Registry (#PACTR201306000536344) http://www.pactr.org/ATMWeb/appm ... ortal_page_mytrials

Keywords: Propofol, Thiopental, General anesthesia, Cesarean section, Apgar score
Go to:
Background
Regional anesthesia is generally preferred during cesarean section, but general anesthesia may be the only option under certain circumstances such as patient preference, back deformities not amenable to spinal anesthesia, failed spinal anesthesia, intracranial hypertension, maternal coagulopathy, and certain neurologic diseases [1]. A safe induction agent for obstetrics should, among other things, provide a smooth, quick induction, maintain maternal hemodynamic function, and exert minimal to no effect on the Apgar score. Thiopental has been routinely used as an anesthetic induction agent for cesarean section since the 1930s and is the standard against which all new agents are compared. However, it has several disadvantages, including decreased maternal arterial pressure, which, when coupled with a long induction time, can reduce the Apgar score [2]. Propofol is widely used for induction and maintenance of anesthesia in other surgeries but not in obstetric procedures. It has a short induction time and blunts airway reflexes during laryngoscopy; compared with thiopental, patients emerge faster from propofol anesthesia [3]. However, propofol also crosses the placenta [4,5] and thus, can depress the fetal central nervous system, resulting in a low Apgar score at birth [6,7].

The population of pregnant mothers requiring cesarean section either by default or by request is rising, [8] and the lack of skilled labor in Uganda is a constant problem [9]. Maternal and child health is the focus of millennial development goals 4 and 5, and improving safety and reducing maternal and neonatal mortality are necessary to achieve these goals. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the effects of thiopental and propofol on the neonatal Apgar score and maternal recovery time following cesarean section.

Go to:
Methods
Study design and setting

This randomized single-blinded clinical trial was performed at Mulago Hospital, which is the main national referral hospital in Uganda. Its obstetric department receives mothers from Kampala and the surrounding region. Approximately 30,000 deliveries are performed annually and 600 cesarean sections monthly, of which 15% are performed under general anesthesia. The high rate of general anesthesia for cesarean sections is due to the erratic availability of spinal needles and drugs, and unfounded patient fears over lumbar punctures in general. Anesthesia is performed by anesthesiologists, anesthetic officers, or postgraduate students in anesthesia.

Study population

We included ASA class I and II term pregnant mothers scheduled to receive general anesthesia for an emergency cesarean section and excluded all patients potentially allergic to propofol or thiopental.

Randomization, blinding, and enrollment

Participants were block randomized into the two study arms. An independent statistician randomly generated the sequence of participant allocation to the thiopental or propofol treatment groups. First, random blocks of 4–10 participants were generated, and within each block, a random sequence for the participant intervention groups was generated and labeled either 1 (one) for propofol or 2 (two) for thiopental. This sequence was concealed from all participants by inserting it into opaque, sequentially arranged sealed envelopes. The intervention group allocations were placed in small envelopes that were then placed in bigger envelopes representing the blocks. At the time of participant recruitment, the study investigator retrieved the next available small envelope, which indicated the intervention group, from the next available block envelope and handed it to the participant.

The patient, midwife, and pediatrician were blinded to the group assignment, but the anesthesia provider was not. The anesthesia providers were either qualified anesthesiologists or residents in their final year of residency. After screening for inclusion and exclusion criteria, eligible women were consecutively enrolled in the study.

Sample size

This was a non-inferiority study. To determine whether a 20% difference in the Apgar score existed between thiopental and propofol treatment, 150 patients were required to be 90% certain that the upper limit of a one-sided 95% confidence interval (or a 90% two-sided interval) excluded a greater than 20% difference in favor of the standard (thiopental) group.

Intervention and anesthetic technique

Each patient was wheeled into the surgical suite in a left lateral position and transferred to the operating table, and a wedge was placed under the right hip to achieve a leftward uterine displacement of 15°. Routine monitors were attached (pulse oximeter for heart rate and oxygen saturation, continuous ECG monitor, and automatic blood pressure monitor). A wide-bore intravenous cannula (16- or 18-G) was placed in the less dominant forearm for administration of drugs and fluids. Intravenous metoclopramide (10 mg) and ranitidine (50 mg) diluted in 20 ml of saline was administered over 2 min. The surgical site was then scrubbed and draped aseptically by the surgeon. Denitrogenification with 100% oxygen was performed for 3 min, and lignocaine (1–2 mg/kg) was administered to blunt the laryngeal reflexes and numb the catheterized vein to the nociceptive effects of the induction drugs. The induction agent was administered, either propofol (2 mg/kg) or thiopentone (4 mg/kg) depending on which study arm the patient was enrolled in, cricoid pressure was applied, and suxamethonium (1.5 mg/kg) administered. Using a laryngoscope, tracheal intubation was performed, confirmed, and secured within 2 min. The patient was maintained on isoflurane (1–1.5%) mixed with 100% oxygen flowing at 2.5 L/min until the start of skin closure. Nitrous oxide and ambient air were not used as these agents are unavailable at this hospital.

Oxytocin (5 IU) diluted in 5 ml of saline was administered as a slow bolus after delivering the baby’s shoulders. Pain was controlled by administering 0.1 mg/kg of morphine after the baby’s umbilical cord was clamped. Rectal paracetamol was also administered at the end of the procedure. All patients received 1,500 ml of crystalloids (normal saline or lactated Ringer’s solution). If hypotension, which was defined as a 20% reduction from the baseline blood pressure, was encountered, then additional crystalloids and vasopressors were administered at the discretion of the anesthesia provider.

Primary outcomes

The neonatal Apgar score was assessed and recorded at 0, 1, 5, and 10 min after the umbilical cord was clamped by the midwife. The requirement for resuscitation and admission into the neonatal special care unit (NICU) was also recorded by the study assistant. Criteria for NICU admission was any neonate requiring more than 3 min of continuous bag mask ventilation during resuscitation as per NICU protocols.

Secondary outcomes

The maternal recovery time was measured, defined as the duration from induction to complete orientation in time, place, and person.

Data management

All data were double entered into Epidata version 3.1 software, with range, consistency, and validation checks embedded to aid data cleaning. The data were analyzed using Stata version 12 software.

Categorical data, including the number of participants and the respective proportions, are presented in tabular, graphical and text forms, and categorized into propofol and thiopental groups. The two groups were compared using the Chi square test. Continuous data are presented as the mean with standard deviation, and were compared between the groups using the t-test to detect any significant differences. The median and interquartile range of the decision-to-delivery interval was calculated, and the differences between the groups were determined using non-parametric testing. A p-value of < 0.05 indicated statistical significance.

An intention-to-treat analysis method was used, and the main outcome of interest was an Apgar score of less than 7. The Poisson regression model was used to assess the incidence risk of the outcome between the two randomization groups and to estimate the risk ratio and confidence interval. Baseline characteristics were equally distributed between the randomization groups, and none of the outcomes differed significantly between the randomization groups. Therefore, multivariate analysis for potential confounders was not performed.

Data safety management board

The Data Safety Management Board (DSMB) comprised an anesthesiologist, statistician, obstetrician, and a pharmacist who were informed if an adverse event occurred. The study would be discontinued if 10% of study subjects in one study arm experienced an adverse event associated with the study drugs as determined by the DSMB, or if a p value of <0.025 was obtained on an interim analysis performed 3 months after beginning the study.

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Department of Anesthesiology, Mulago Hospital Ethics Committee, the School of Medicine Research and Ethics Committee (SOMREC), and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. All patients provided informed, written consent before the start of surgery. This trial is registered in the Pan-African Clinical Trial Registry (#PACTR201306000536344).

Go to:
Results
A total 150 pregnant women were enrolled from November 2013 to April 2014 as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1
Figure 1
Summary of patient recruitment and allocation.
Maternal baseline characteristics

Maternal baseline characteristics were equally distributed between the two study groups. The mean maternal age in the propofol and thiopental groups was 25.2 years and 24.2 years, and the mean weight was 68.6 kg and 66.7 kg, respectively. The median overall decision-to-delivery interval was 137.5 (IQR 20–968), and there was no statistically significant difference between the median intervals in the propofol (median 145; IQR 20–600) and thiopental (median 120; IQR 26–900; p = 0.540) groups. The induction-to-delivery interval and the surgical duration also showed no significant differences between the groups (Table 1).

Table 1
Table 1
Maternal baseline characteristics
Apgar score distribution

A total 74 neonates had an Apgar score < 7. Of those, 43 were in the propofol group and 31 in the thiopental group, with an incidence ratio of 1.42 (95% CI = 0.88–2.32) and a p-value of 0.068.

At 0 min, 43 (57.3%) neonates in the propofol group had an Apgar score < 7, compared with 31 (41.3%) neonates in the thiopental group. At 1 min, 35 (46.7%) and 24 (32%) neonates had an Apgar score <7 in the propofol and thiopental groups, respectively. At the 5-min mark, 13 (17.3%) and 8 (10.7%) neonates had Apgar scores < 7 in the propofol and thiopental groups, respectively, while at the 10-min mark, 3 (4%) neonates in the propofol group and 2 (2.7%) in the thiopental group had an Apgar score < 7.

The incidence of neonates with an Apgar score < 7 at each interval is summarized in Table 2. There were no statistically significant differences at any of the time points, except at time 0, which had a marginally significant difference (p = 0.05). The proportion of neonates with an Apgar score < 7 gradually decreased and did not differ significantly between the groups at 10 min. The trends are further detailed in Figure 2.

Table 2
Table 2
Percentage of neonates with an Apgar score < 7 post-cesarean section
Figure 2
Figure 2
Percentage of neonates with a postpartum Apgar score < 7.
Neonatal intervention and NICU admission

Maneuvers to improve Apgar scores included gentle stimulation or active resuscitation, which could be brief or prolonged. In total, 14 of 74 neonates born with an Apgar score < 7 required gentle stimulation to raise the Apgar score > 7. Of these, seven were in the propofol group and seven in the thiopental group. The remaining 60 neonates required active resuscitation including stimulation, bag mask ventilation, Laryngeal Mask Airway or endotracheal tube insertion, and ventilation, which was discontinued once the neonate demonstrated adequate spontaneous respiration. A total 19 (52.8%) neonates with an Apgar score ≤ 7 recovered (improved Apgar scores) after < 5 min of resuscitation in the propofol group compared with 12 (50%) neonates in the thiopental group. Additionally, 1 (2.78%) neonate in the propofol group and 2 (8.33%) in the thiopental group died. As per protocol, any neonates with low Apgar scores who required continuous bag mask ventilation for >3 min were admitted for close observation for at least 24 hours.

A total 22 neonates were admitted into the NICU for close observation, comprising 16 (21.33%) neonates from the propofol group and 6 (8%) from the thiopental group. Of these, 2 (13.3%) neonates in the propofol group continued to have an Apgar score < 7 (Table 3).

Table 3
Table 3
Neonatal resuscitation
Maternal recovery time

The mean recovery time was significantly shorter in the propofol group (25.1 min) than in the thiopental group (31.4 min; p = 0.003).

Go to:
Discussion
We conducted a single blinded randomized clinical trial comparing the effects of propofol and thiopental on neonatal Apgar scores and maternal peri-operative outcomes.

The Apgar scores of neonates randomized into the two study arms did not significantly differ, except at 0 min, which showed a marginally significant difference. However, the percentage of neonates with unsatisfactory scores (<7) was greater than 50% in the propofol group (57.3%) compared with that in the thiopental group (41.3%). While this may not be statistically significant, this outcome cannot be ignored because it highlights the need for skilled labor to attend all births when anesthesia is induced with propofol. The high prevalence of unsatisfactory Apgar scores can be attributed to the high rate of placental transfer of propofol coupled with the rapid loss of consciousness, as reported in previous studies [5,10].

The percentage of neonates with an Apgar score < 7 at the 1, 5, and 10-min intervals steadily decreased in both study groups to nearly equal numbers of three and two neonates in the propofol and thiopental groups, respectively (Figure 2). None of the differences in the Apgar scores were significant between the two groups, except at 0 min, which showed borderline significance, despite the Apgar scores being higher in the propofol group than in the thiopental group (Table 2). This finding is consistent with those of other studies comparing these two induction agents [11-13]. The faster improvement in the Apgar scores in the propofol group is probably caused by the fast redistribution half-life of propofol, which is as low as 1 min [14-16], while thiopental requires up to 6 min [17]. This also explains the higher percentage of neonates who recovered in <5 min in the propofol group.

An important finding in our study was the significantly higher rate of NICU admissions in the propofol group compared with the thiopental group. All but three neonates admitted to the NICU survived at 24 hours.

The three neonates that died in this study had low Apgar scores coupled with poor respiratory effort; they required ventilator assistance, but because these services were unavailable in the NICU, they died. A large percentage of neonates were admitted into the NICU (22% overall) not only because of low Apgar scores, but also due to protocol. All neonates with low Apgar scores requiring continuous bag mask ventilation for >3 min are admitted for close observation for at least 24 hours.

The mean recovery times were significantly shorter in the propofol group than in the thiopental group at 25 min (10.13) versus 31 min (14.66), respectively (p = 0.003). Because the mean duration of isoflurane exposure was identical in the groups (38.9 vs. 38.1 min), the prolonged recovery time in the thiopental group can be solely attributed to the induction agent. Contribution from the initial maternal physiologic state cannot be discounted; however, under normal circumstances, this factor should be evenly distributed between the two study groups as the study population was randomized.

Our study had a number of limitations. This was a single-blinded study because of the consistency of the drugs evaluated; propofol is a white, milky suspension, and thiopental is a yellow, clear solution. The anesthesia providers are aware of this difference; therefore, blinding them is impossible. Any individual variation in the metabolism of the induction drugs could not be measured; thus, this potential contribution to the low Apgar scores could not be accounted for. Finally, the interval between the decision to perform cesarean section and the delivery was significantly higher than the recommended 30 min for an emergency case, which also contributed to the low Apgar scores overall.

Go to:
Conclusions
In conclusion, the Apgar scores did not differ significantly whether thiopental or propofol was used as an induction agent in women receiving general anesthetic for an emergency cesarean section. However, there was a higher rate of NICU admission among neonates in the propofol group. Propofol does offer the advantage of a shorter recovery time. In a referral center where cesarean sections under general anesthesia are inevitable whether by design or default, it is important to carefully select the induction agent. Furthermore, skilled personnel are required to attend to neonates delivered by cesarean section under general anesthesia.

 友情提示:论坛资源下载与分享的详细说明  (←点击查看详情

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报/纠错

98#
发表于 2015-6-18 23:01:37 | 只看该作者
本人有以下几点提出讨论:
1.胎儿不会无缘无故出现心跳骤停,本病例提供的资料是否为真实情况?
2.紧急剖宫产建议麻醉前让产科医生再次确定胎心情况,本例如排除麻醉原因,在实施麻醉前或切皮前胎心已经明显抑制,与后者使用麻醉药物无关;
3.使用丙泊酚后是否有产妇缺氧或低血压发生?80mg是否可靠? 推注速度?如何判断产妇缺氧?面罩加压给氧不符合产妇全麻---RSI原则,返流误吸?是否使用了其他阿片类药物?隐瞒情况?丙泊酚全麻是标准做法,我本人曾经有近百列产科全麻醉经验,在标准剂量下与胎儿预后无关。
Rapid sequence induction using propofol and rocuronium should become the standard for general anaesthesia in the obstetric patient. Short-acting opioids are still not given routinely but should never be withheld in case of severe preeclampsia. Cricoid pressure can only be accurately performed by trained caregivers and should be released if intubation appears to be difficult. Supra-glottic airway devices may safely be used in fasted, nonobese elective caesarean section, but endotracheal intubation remains the gold standard, especially in emergency caesarean section in labouring women. Both sevoflurane and propofol are appropriate for the maintenance of general anaesthesia during caesarean section. Awareness remains a major concern in obstetric anaesthesia.

评分

1

查看全部评分

有奖活动:我为论坛出谋划策!! ←点击查看详情

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报/纠错

97#
发表于 2015-6-18 22:31:05 | 只看该作者
中国的医生怎么这么悲哀!无药可用,还要给他医。

有奖活动:我为论坛出谋划策!! ←点击查看详情

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报/纠错

96#
发表于 2015-6-18 19:30:39 | 只看该作者
这种情况曾经开个会议听说过,法院肯定是以说明书为准的。所以以后用药还真是小心哪

友情提示:转载请注意注明作者和出处!!

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报/纠错

95#
发表于 2015-6-18 15:09:39 | 只看该作者
wanghe1110 发表于 2015-6-16 13:02
桑兰还用得着大麻醉吗?感觉多此一举

截瘫病人必须给麻醉!

有奖活动:我为论坛出谋划策!! ←点击查看详情

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报/纠错

94#
发表于 2015-6-18 09:29:49 | 只看该作者
那是因为找到明显的把柄了。如果你用了氯.胺.酮、依托咪酯或笑气加七氟烷,他们也有话可说,你这是全麻药,就有可能导致新生儿麻醉和窒息。反正在中国,你制定的指南权威性还不如药物说明书。如果你不用任何麻醉药,由产科医师局麻,也有话可说——局麻松弛度不够,取胎困难,导致胎儿缺氧加重(产科不会说她们的切口一贯小的),而且因局麻抽药和注射局麻药延误抢救时机。我靠,左右不是人,反正死定了。大佬们是不需要亲自做麻醉的,小民遭殃罢了。

有奖活动:我为论坛出谋划策!! ←点击查看详情

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报/纠错

93#
发表于 2015-6-18 08:24:45 | 只看该作者
遇到这种情况,坚决局麻做手术,无论产科怎么辩解,反正我没有进行操作,责任就不会是麻醉科担主要责任。总之中国医生的职业环境的恶劣不知还要持续多长时间。

 友情提示:论坛资源下载与分享的详细说明  (←点击查看详情

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报/纠错

92#
发表于 2015-6-18 08:18:12 | 只看该作者
现在还有氯.胺.酮吗?,氯.胺.酮其实是特别好的药可惜买不到了。

有奖活动:我为论坛出谋划策!! ←点击查看详情

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报/纠错

91#
发表于 2015-6-17 22:56:39 | 只看该作者

安定入胎盘屏障,量大对胎儿有影响,而且文中用法主要是用来镇静,而不是用来软化宫颈口我。

友情提示:转载请注意注明作者和出处!!

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报/纠错

90#
发表于 2015-6-17 22:13:07 | 只看该作者
是哪个厂家的Propofol,是不是不同商品名的Propofol说明书不一样,写产科麻醉禁忌太过分,换其他牌子的,说明书写个产科麻醉慎用,打官司也好点啊

 友情提示:论坛资源下载与分享的详细说明  (←点击查看详情

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报/纠错

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 会员注册

本版积分规则


论坛郑重声明 本站供网上自由讨论使用,所有个人言论并不代表本站立场,所发布资源均来源于网络,假若內容有涉及侵权,请联络我们。我们将立刻删除侵权资源,并向版权所有者致以诚挚的歉意!
收藏帖子 返回列表 联系我们 搜索 官方QQ群

QQ|关于我们|业务合作|手机版|新青年麻醉论坛 ( 浙ICP备19050841号-1 )

GMT+8, 2025-1-26 14:16 , Processed in 0.168443 second(s), 20 queries , Gzip On.

Powered by Discuz! X3.2

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表