论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨依托咪酯麻醉诱导在异位妊娠失血性休克患者的应用效果。方法 129例异位妊娠失血性休克患者采用静-吸复合麻醉,麻醉诱导分别用依托咪酯0.2mg/kg(E组,67例)和丙泊酚1.0~1.5mg/kg(P组,62例)。比较两组术中血压波动、出入量、术后并发症及住院时间。结果 E组术前MAP低于P组[(58.3±12.5)mmHg vs.(70.8±7.7)mmHg](P<0.05),麻醉诱导后两组MAP相仿[(51.7±7.7)mmHg vs.(53.8±10.6)mmHg](P>0.05)。E组出血量[(1895.5±678.6)ml vs.(1691.8±427.5)ml]、输注红细胞[(6.2±2.4)U vs.(4.2±1.6)U]及血浆量[(328.0±93.6)ml vs.(260.0±60.4)ml]均多于P组(P<0.05)。两组术后并发症发生率和住院时间均无统计学差异(P>0.05),两组均未出现死亡病例。结论与丙泊酚比较,异位妊娠失血性休克患者采用依托咪酯麻醉诱导能较好地维持循环稳定。
Objective To investigate the effect of etomidate-induced anesthesia in the treatment of hemorrhagic shock in patients with ectopic pregnancy. Methods A total of 129 patients with hemorrhagic shock of ectopic pregnancy were anesthetized by intravenous anesthesia with etomidate 0.2 mg / kg (group E, 67 cases) and propofol 1.0 ~ 1.5 mg / kg (group P, example). Blood pressure fluctuation, volume of admission, postoperative complications and hospital stay were compared between the two groups. Results The preoperative MAP in group E was lower than that in group P [(58.3 ± 12.5) mmHg vs. (70.8 ± 7.7) mmHg] (P <0.05) ± 10.6) mmHg] (P> 0.05). The amount of bleeding in group E [(1895.5 ± 678.6) ml vs. (1691.8 ± 427.5) ml], the amount of erythrocytes [(6.2 ± 2.4) U vs. (4.2 ± 1.6) U] (260.0 ± 60.4) ml] than those in P group (P <0.05). There were no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative complications and hospital stay between the two groups (P> 0.05). No deaths occurred in either group. Conclusion Compared with propofol, patients with ectopic pregnancy hemorrhagic shock induced by etomidate anesthesia can better maintain circulatory stability.