地塞米松联合昂丹司琼对胸腔镜术后病人静脉自控镇痛PONV的影响

目的:观察地塞米松联合昂丹司琼对胸腔镜术后病人自控静脉镇痛(PCIA)相关恶心呕吐的防治效果。方法:120例ASAⅠ~Ⅱ接受胸腔镜手术的患者,随机分为两组:地塞米松与昂丹司琼联合组(OD组)和昂丹司琼组(O组)。OD组患者在诱导时给予10 mg地塞米松,O组给予等量生理盐水,在手术结束前10分钟时,患者均给予静脉注射8 mg昂丹司琼,术后均行病人自控静脉镇痛(PCIA:生理盐水将2μg/kg舒芬太尼和8 mg昂丹司琼稀释到100 m L)。观察术后48小时内的恶心呕吐的发生率及严重程度。结果:在术后恶心呕吐整体发生率上OD组(53.3%)与O组(60%),差异无统计学意义(P0.05),但在重度PONV发生率上OD组(10%)要显著低于O组(26.7%),差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:地塞米松联合昂丹司琼能有效地降低胸腔镜手术后以舒芬太尼为主的病人自控静脉镇痛所致严重恶心呕吐的发生率。     

麻醉诱导时血压下降对术后恶心呕吐的影响

目的观察麻醉诱导时血压下降与术后恶心呕吐的关系。方法选择ASAⅠ-Ⅱ级的经腹胆囊切除术患者40例,按麻醉诱导时血压比基础值下降的程度分为2组,每组20例。A组SBP比基础血压下降>30%;B组SBP比基础血压下降<30%。术后随访病人48小时,记录病人恶心呕吐的发生情况。结果麻醉诱导时血压下降对术后恶心呕吐有明显影响。结论麻醉期间维持血流动力学稳定能降低PONV的发生。     

非阿片类镇痛复合静脉全麻在鼾症手术患者中的疗效

目的:观察三重措施预防为基础,联合非阿片镇痛药复合静脉全麻在行鼾症手术患者术后恶心呕吐的应用效果。方法:选择择期行鼾症手术男性病人80例,随机分为两组:吸入麻醉组(inhalation group, IHLA组)和静脉麻醉组(intravenous group, TIVA组),每组40例,两组均采用三重措施预防恶心呕吐,IHLA组采用以舒芬太尼为基础复合七氟烷吸入麻醉,TIVA组以氯胺酮和右美托咪定镇痛基础上丙泊酚全凭静脉麻醉。评估两组病人恶心呕吐危险系数,采用李克特量表(Likert scale),记录并分析两组患者术后6~8 h在麻醉后监测治疗室(post anesthesia care unit, PACU)及病房24 h恶心呕吐发生情况及补救用药用量。结果:两组患者一般临床资料、恶心呕吐风险评分、手术时间、术后恢复期补救用药量人数无显著差异(P>0.05);IHLA组在PACU恶心呕吐发生率为39.5%,TIVA组发生率为18.9%,两者相比有显著性差异(P<0.05);IHLA组病房24 h恶心呕吐严重程度高于TIVA组,两组术后需要补救应用抗呕吐药物用量无显著差异(P>0.05)。结论:以三重措施预防为基础,与吸入麻醉相比,非阿片类镇痛药复合静脉麻醉可以减少肥胖病人鼾症手术术后恶心呕吐发生率和严重程度,降低围术期风险,有利于患者早期恢复。     

经皮穴位电刺激联合雷莫司琼对全麻术后恶心呕吐的影响

目的:评价经皮穴位电刺激联合盐酸雷莫司琼对全麻术后恶心呕吐(PONV)的影响。方法:选择择期拟行全麻腹腔镜手术患者90例,随机分为三组。Ⅰ组手术结束前15 min静脉给予盐酸雷莫司琼0.3 mg,Ⅱ组麻醉诱导前30 min给予经皮电刺激30 min,Ⅲ组重复上述两组操作。分别于入室(T0)、术毕(T1)、术后24 h(T2)采集外周静脉血样,测定胃泌素(GAS)浓度并记录术后24小时内PONV的发生情况。结果:与T0时比较,Ⅱ组、Ⅲ组T2时GAS浓度下降,Ⅰ组T2时GAS浓度升高(P0.05);与I组比较,T2时Ⅱ组、Ⅲ组GAS浓度降低(P0.05);与Ⅰ组、Ⅱ组比较,Ⅲ组术后PONV的发生率及发生的严重程度均下降(P0.05)。Ⅰ组、Ⅱ组间PONV发生率及发生的严重程度无明显差异(P0.05)。结论:经皮穴位电刺激可以降低全麻患者术后PONV的发生率,与盐酸雷莫司琼效果相近,二者联用止吐效果更佳,其机制可能与降低GAS浓度有关。     

麻醉诱导时血压下降对术后恶心呕吐的影响

目的：观察麻醉诱导时血压下降与术后恶心呕吐的关系.方法：选择ASAⅠ-Ⅱ级的经腹胆囊切除术患者40例,按麻醉诱导时血压比基础值下降的程度分为2组,每组20例.A组：SBP比基础血压下降〉30%;B组：SBP比基础血压下降〈30%.术后随访病人48小时,记录病人恶心呕吐的发生情况.结果：麻醉诱导时血压下降对术后恶心呕吐有明显影响.结论：麻醉期间维持血流动力学稳定能降低PONV的发生.     

5-HT2和5-HT3受体在外周初级感觉神经末梢痛反应和痛调制中的相互作用

目的：探讨5-HT2和5-HT3受体亚型在5-HT引起外周痛反应和痛调制中的相互作用及其机制;方法：在大鼠三又神经节神经元标本上应用全细胞膜片钳技术记录5-羟色胺激活电流（15_HT）,并结合痛行为实验进行观察。结果：在大多数受检细胞（54／88,61．4％）特别是中、小型细胞外加5-HT可引起一快去敏感的内向电流,此内向电流能被5-HT,受体特异性激动剂2-甲基-5-羟色胺所模拟,被5-HT3受体拮抗剂ICS250-930可逆性阻断,而5-HT2受体激动剂α-甲基-5-羟色胺则有明显增强15-HT的作用,5-HT1受体激动剂R-（＋）-UH301无明显反应。在进一步的整体清醒动物的行为学试验中我们观察到,大鼠后肢掌底皮下注射5-HT（10-5,10-4和10-3mol／L）引起浓度依赖性的痛行为反应,而用5-HT2和5-HT3受体特异性拮抗剂Cyproheptadine和ICS250-930分别阻断相应受体亚型后,5-HT引起的痛行为反应的强度序列为：5-HT〉5-HT＋ICS〉5-HT＋Cyp。结论：本文结果提示：5-HT所引起的痛反应中,在初级感觉神经元水平5-HT3受体可能仅起着启始作用,而5-HT,受体则在伤害性信息的维持和调制过程中发挥更大的作用。     

NK1 受体拮抗剂的应用研究进展

神经激肽中P物质是中枢神经系统最重要的神经递质之一,通过与其最主要的受体NK1受体结合在多种疾病的病理过程中发挥作用。NK1受体拮抗剂近年来在临床上应用广泛,不仅能治疗化疗引起的恶心,呕吐,而且在缓解抑郁,抗肿瘤,治疗急性尿失禁方面都显示有很好的疗效。本文就近年来NK1受体拮抗剂的应用研究进展进行综述。     

哺乳动物中枢两种不同的5-羟色胺受体

用放射配基结合分析等方法证明,哺乳动物中枢,带氚标记的5-羟色胺(5-HT)和螺哌啶,分别标记在两种不同性质的5-HT受体上,Peroutka和Snyder把这两种亚型受体分别称为5-HT_1受体和5-HT_2受体。一般说来,5-HT_1受体对5-HT及其受体激动剂敏感;5-HT_2受体对受体拮抗剂敏感,但对5-HT是低敏感的。这两种亚型受体的中枢分布及其生理学意义已作了初步探讨。最近,根据电生理等实验观察表明,中脑中缝核存在5-HT自身受体。有学者提出,5-HT_1受体还可再分为两种亚型。提示存在多种亚型5-HT受体的可能性。     

地塞米松预防乳癌患者术后恶心呕吐的有效性和安全性的临床研究

目的：分析地塞米松对接受乳癌根治术的患者术后恶心呕吐、血糖、皮质醇、出血和感染的影响,明确其临床使用的有效性和安全性。方法：将160 例择期全麻下行单侧乳癌改良根治术的女性患者随机分为实验组（地塞米松组,n=80）和对照组（生理盐水组,n=80）。检测两组患者术后第1 天和第3 天血糖和血清皮质醇水平,记录术后1～3天恶心呕吐次数和抗呕吐药物的使用量,比较两组术后1 周内出血和感染的发生情况。结果：实验组患者术后第1 天的恶心发生率显著低于对照组,术后1～2 天的呕吐发生率均显著低于对照组,术后第1 天血清皮质醇较对照组显著降低（P〈0.05）。两组患者术后血糖水平比较无统计学差异（P〉0.05）。术后1 周内,两组患者出血和感染的发生情况比较均无显著性差异（P〉0.05）。结论：地塞米松可有效地预防乳癌改良根治术患者术后恶心呕吐,短暂抑制术后内源性皮质醇水平,不增加患者术后高血糖、出血和感染的风险。     

静脉与硬膜外注射地塞米松对吗啡硬膜外术后镇痛的影响

目的:比较两种不同途径注射地塞米松磷酸钠对吗啡硬膜外术后镇痛的影响。方法:选择200例(ASAⅠ-Ⅱ)在腰硬联合麻醉下行腹式子宫切除术的患者,随机分为A、B、C、D四组(n=50),各组均给以硬膜外注射2.5 mg吗啡作为术后镇痛治疗的同时,A组静脉注射安慰剂(生理盐水),B组静脉注射地塞米松磷酸钠10 mg,C组静脉注射地塞米松磷酸钠5 mg,D组硬膜外注射地塞米松磷酸钠5 mg及静脉注射安慰剂(生理盐水),以上均以5 mL作为注射容积。观察和比较术后24 h内各组恶心和呕吐(PONV)、皮肤瘙痒、补救镇痛、呼吸抑制的发生率、排气时间和补救镇痛时间。结果:B、C、D三组的PONV总发生率显著低于A组(P0.0083),而B、C、D三组之间比较无显著差异(P0.0083);A、B、C、D四组间恶心的发生率无显著差异(P0.05),而D组呕吐的发生率明显低于A组(P0.0083);B组皮肤瘙痒的发生率明显低于A组(P0.0083);四组患者的VAS评分比较无显著差异,均达到满意的镇痛效果(P0.05)。四组患者补救镇痛的发生率、补救镇痛药量和排气时间比较无明显差异(P0.05),而C、D组的补救镇痛时间明显比A组延长(P0.0083),四组患者均未出现呼吸抑制。结论:地塞米松磷酸钠可降低吗啡硬膜外术后恶心和呕吐的发生率,延长补救镇痛时间;硬膜外注射地塞米松磷酸钠对降低呕吐的发生率更有效;静脉注射地塞米松磷酸钠10 mg可降低瘙痒的发生率,且无明显的不良反应。     

Gender-Specific Differences in Low-Dose Haloperidol Response for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Register-Based Cohort Study

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most common and distressing complications after general anesthesia and surgery, with young non-smoking females receiving postoperative opioids being high-risk patients. This register-based study aims to evaluate the effect of low-dose haloperidol (0.5 mg intravenously) directly after induction of general anesthesia to reduce the incidence of PONV in the postoperative anesthesiological care unit (PACU).

Methods

Multivariable regression models were used to investigate the association between low-dose haloperidol and the occurrence of PONV using a patient registry containing 2,617 surgical procedures carried out at an university hospital.

Results

Haloperidol 0.5 mg is associated with a reduced risk of PONV in the total collective (adjusted odds ratio = 0.75, 95% confidence interval: [0.56, 0.99], p = 0.05). The results indicate that there is a reduced risk in male patients (adjusted odds ratio = 0.45, 95% confidence interval: [0.28, 0.73], p = 0.001) if a dose of 0.5 mg haloperidol was administered while there seems to be no effect in females (adjusted odds ratio = 1.02, 95% confidence interval: [0.71, 1.46], p = 0.93). Currently known risk factors for PONV such as female gender, duration of anesthesia and the use of opioids were confirmed in our analysis.

Conclusion

This study suggests that low-dose haloperidol has an antiemetic effect in male patients but has no effect in female patients. A confirmation of the gender-specific effects we have observed in this register-based cohort study might have major implications on clinical daily routine.     

The prevention of emesis in plastic surgery: a randomized,prospective study

Perhaps the most unpleasant experience following outpatient plastic surgery procedures is postoperative nausea and vomiting. Postoperative nausea and vomiting often results in delayed recovery time and unintended admission, and it can be a contributing factor to the formation of hematoma following rhytidectomy. Ondansetron (Zofran) has proven benefit in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting if given before general anesthesia in a variety of surgical procedures. Its utility in cases performed under conscious sedation has not been determined. The purpose of this study was (1) to test the ability of prophylactic ondansetron to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in plastic surgery cases performed under conscious sedation, and (2) to determine relative risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting and a selection policy for the administration of antiemetic prophylaxis. This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. One hundred twenty patients were enrolled after giving informed consent. Patients received a single dose of either placebo or ondansetron (4 mg intravenously) before administration of sedation. Sedation administration followed a standardized institutional protocol, using midazolam and fentanyl. Data were recorded from a series of three questionnaires: preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and at the time of the first office return. Data were confirmed by means of telephone interview, chart analysis, and nursing documentation. Multivariate analysis was conducted. Nausea and emesis occurred with an overall frequency of 33 percent and 22 percent, respectively. Postoperative nausea and vomiting was associated with statistically longer recovery periods. The incidence of emesis was statistically higher among women, among those undergoing facial rejuvenation, and among those with a history of opioid-induced emesis or postoperative nausea and vomiting following a previous operation (p < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting paralleled increases in case duration; the incidence of emesis was zero in cases less than 90 minutes in duration. Ondansetron significantly reduced the incidence of emesis overall (placebo, 30 percent; ondansetron, 13 percent; p < 0.05). Postoperative perception of nausea was significantly lower among those who had received ondansetron (p < 0.05). These results confirm the efficacy of ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in plastic surgery cases under conscious sedation. In those who are at increased risk, prophylaxis should be considered. Such risks include female gender, facial rejuvenation procedures, and a patient history of opioid-induced emesis or postoperative nausea and vomiting following a prior operation. The zero incidence of emesis in cases less than 90 minutes does not support the routine use of prophylaxis in such cases. Patient satisfaction in plastic surgery is derived from the overall subjective experience of the event as much as by the final result. By remaining attentive to patient concerns and optimizing perioperative care, we can improve the subjective experience for our patients.     

Anesthetic implications of laparoscopic surgery

Minimally invasive therapy aims to minimize the trauma of any interventional process but still achieve a satisfactory therapeutic result. The development of "critical pathways," rapid mobilization and early feeding have contributed towards the goal of shorter hospital stay. This concept has been extended to include laparoscopic cholecystectomy and hernia repair. Reports have been published confirming the safety of same day discharge for the majority of patients. However, we would caution against overenthusiastic ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy on the rational but unproven assumption that early discharge will lead to occasional delays in diagnosis and management of postoperative complications. Intraoperative complications of laparoscopic surgery are mostly due to traumatic injuries sustained during blind trocar insertion and physiologic changes associated with patient positioning and pneumoperitoneum creation. General anesthesia and controlled ventilation comprise the accepted anesthetic technique to reduce the increase in PaCO2. Investigators have recently documented the cardiorespiratory compromise associated with upper abdominal laparoscopic surgery, and particular emphasis is placed on careful perioperative monitoring of ASA III-IV patients during insufflation. Setting limits on the inflationary pressure is advised in these patients. Anesthesiologists must maintain a high index of suspicion for complications such as gas embolism, extraperitoneal insufflation and surgical emphysema, pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum. Postoperative nausea and vomiting are among the most common and distressing symptoms after laparoscopic surgery. A highly potent and selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, ondansetron, has proven to be an effective oral and IV prophylaxis against postoperative emesis in preliminary studies. Opioids remain an important component of the anesthesia technique, although the introduction of newer potent NSAIDs may diminish their use. A preoperative multimodal analgesic regimen involving skin infiltration with local anesthesia. NSAIDs to attenuate peripheral pain and opioids for central pain may reduce postoperative discomfort and expedite patient recovery/discharge. There is no conclusive evidence to demonstrate clinically significant effects of nitrous oxide on surgical conditions during laparoscopic cholecystectomy or on the incidence of postoperative emesis. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has proven to be a major advance in the treatment of patients with symptomatic gallbladder disease.     

Aprepitant versus ondansetron in preoperative triple-therapy treatment of nausea and vomiting in neurosurgery patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting is 50% to 80% after neurosurgery. The common prophylactic treatment for postoperative nausea and vomiting is a triple therapy of droperidol (Inapsine), promethazine (Phenergan) and dexamethasone (Decadron). Newer, more effectives methods of prophylaxis are being investigated. We designed this prospective, double-blind, single center study to compare the efficacy of ondansetron (Zofran) to a neurokinin-1 antagonist, aprepitant (Emend), as a substitute for droperidol, in the prophylactic treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting after neurosurgery. METHODS: After obtaining institutional review board approval, One hundred-seventy-six patients, 18-85 years of age with ASA I to III, who did not receive anti-emetics 24 hours before surgery and are expected to undergo general anesthesia for neurosurgery lasting longer than two hours were included in this study. After meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria and providing written informed consent, patients will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to one of two treatment groups: aprepitant or ondansetron. Because ondansetron is given intravenously and aprepitant orally, patients will be given an oral or intravenous placebo to maintain the double blind. Patients will receive aprepitant 40 mg PO/placebo within 2 hours prior to induction. At induction, a combination of intravenous dexamethasone 10 mg, promethazine 25 mg and ondansetron 4 mg/placebo will be given. The primary outcome measures are the episodes and severity of nausea and vomiting; administration of rescue antiemetic; and opioid consumption for 120 hours postoperatively. Standard safety assessments will include adverse event reports, physical and laboratory data, awakening time and duration of recovery from anesthesia. Logistic regression will be used to test the efficacy of aprepitant compared to ondansetron with demographic characteristics as potential covariates in the model. For the number of rescue therapy treatments used during the postoperative period, a Wilcoxon rank sum test will be performed. DISCUSSION: The results of this comparative study will potentially identify an improved treatment regimen that will decrease the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing neurosurgery. This will serve to enhance patient recovery and overall satisfaction of neurosurgical patients in the immediate postoperative period. Registered at The Ohio State University Biomedical Sciences Institutional Review Board: Protocol Number: 2007H0053 KEYWORDS: aprepitant, postoperative nausea and vomiting, craniotomy, ondansetron. Word Count: 347.     

胸神经阻滞和肋间神经阻滞对乳腺癌根治术患者血流动力学、术后镇痛及呼吸功能的对比研究

目的:比较胸神经阻滞和肋间神经阻滞对乳腺癌根治术患者血流动力学、术后镇痛以及呼吸功能的影响,为乳腺癌根治术患者的临床麻醉选择提供参考。方法:选择2017年3月至2018年3月医院收治的120例行乳腺癌根治术的患者作为研究对象,按照麻醉方式不同分为观察组和对照组各60例,其中观察组患者给予胸神经阻滞复合全身麻醉,对照组患者给予肋间神经阻滞复合全身麻醉。比较两组患者术后2h、6h、12h、24h、48h的静态和动态的视觉模拟评分(VAS)评分,并比较两组患者切皮前5 min(T_0)、切皮即刻(T_1)、切皮后15 min(T_2)、30 min(T_3)、钉皮即刻(T_4)及拔管后15 min(T_5)的血流动力学以及呼吸功能指标,并分析两组患者术中用药、术后镇痛泵使用情况以及术后不良反应。结果:两组患者术后静息状态下不同时点的VAS评分差异无统计学意义(P0.05);动态状态下,观察组患者的VAS评分明显低于对照组(P0.05)。T_1-T_5期间,观察组患者的平均动脉压(MAP)、心率(HR)均明显低于对照组,每分钟通气量(MV)明显高于对照组(P0.05)。观察组患者的术中瑞芬太尼消耗量、丙泊酚用量、镇痛泵有效按压次数以及补救镇痛例数均明显低于对照组;恶心呕吐(PONV)、尿潴留、嗜睡等不良反应明显低于对照组(P0.05)。结论:与肋间神经阻滞相比,胸神经阻滞治疗乳腺癌根治术患者可以有效增强术后镇痛效果,术中血流动力学平稳,减少阿片类药物用量,降低术后不良反应发生率,改善术后呼吸功能,效果显著,值得临床推广使用。