谌雅雨, 谈晓露, 张兴安. 靶控输注与恒速输注丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼全凭静脉麻醉效果和安全性对比的系统评价[J]. 循证医学, 2019, 19(1): 47-55. DOI: 10.12019/j.issn.1671-5144.2019.01.013
    引用本文: 谌雅雨, 谈晓露, 张兴安. 靶控输注与恒速输注丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼全凭静脉麻醉效果和安全性对比的系统评价[J]. 循证医学, 2019, 19(1): 47-55. DOI: 10.12019/j.issn.1671-5144.2019.01.013
    CHEN Ya-yu, TAN Xiao-lu, ZHANG Xing-an. Efficacy and Safety of Target Controlled Infusion(TCI) Compared to Manually Controlled Infusion(MCI) with Propofol and Remifentanil for Total Intravenous Anesthesia: A Systematic Review[J]. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2019, 19(1): 47-55. DOI: 10.12019/j.issn.1671-5144.2019.01.013
    Citation: CHEN Ya-yu, TAN Xiao-lu, ZHANG Xing-an. Efficacy and Safety of Target Controlled Infusion(TCI) Compared to Manually Controlled Infusion(MCI) with Propofol and Remifentanil for Total Intravenous Anesthesia: A Systematic Review[J]. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2019, 19(1): 47-55. DOI: 10.12019/j.issn.1671-5144.2019.01.013

    靶控输注与恒速输注丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼全凭静脉麻醉效果和安全性对比的系统评价

    Efficacy and Safety of Target Controlled Infusion(TCI) Compared to Manually Controlled Infusion(MCI) with Propofol and Remifentanil for Total Intravenous Anesthesia: A Systematic Review

    • 摘要: 目的 系统评价对比靶控输注与恒速输注丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼全凭静脉麻醉的效果和安全性。 方法 计算机检索Cochrane图书馆、Cochrane协作网麻醉专业协作组数据库、MEDLINE、EMBASE、PubMed、中国知网、维普和万方数据库中关于靶控输注与恒速输注丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼全凭静脉麻醉的临床随机对照研究,检索时限截止至2018年5月。由2位评价者独立选择文献、提取资料和评估方法学质量后,采用RevMan 5.3软件进行统计学处理。 结果 纳入16项研究,合计1 131例患者。Meta分析结果显示: 与传统恒速输注丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼组相比,靶控输注组诱导期平均动脉压波动更平稳(均数差=6.81,95%可信区间1.54~12.07,P=0.01);靶控组苏醒时间(均数差=-2.32,95%可信区间-4.17~-0.48,P=0.01)、自主呼吸恢复时间(均数差=-1.44,95%可信区间-2.86~-0.02,P=0.05)和拔管时间(均数差=-2.41,95%可信区间-4.62~-0.19,P=0.03)均明显缩短;同时,靶控组可明显减少丙泊酚用量(均数差=-48.83,95%可信区间-87.80~-9.86,P=0.01)以及瑞芬太尼用量(均数差=-116.62,95%可信区间-218.95~-14.29,P=0.03),降低呼吸抑制的发生率(相对危险度=0.35,95%可信区间0.14~0.84,P=0.02),差异均具有统计学意义;但两组间术中知晓、低血压、心动过缓、术后恶心呕吐、躁动的发生率差异无统计学意义。 结论 与恒速输注相比较,靶控输注丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼可维持诱导期血流动力学稳定,明显缩短麻醉恢复时间,减少麻醉药物用量及费用,降低呼吸抑制发生率。

       

      Abstract: Objecive To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of target controlled infusion(TCI) compared to manually controlled infusion(MCI) with Propofol and Remifentanil for total intravenous anesthesia. Methods Databases including the Cochrane library, the database of the Cochrane anesthesia group,MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CNKI, VIP and Wanfang data were electronically searched from inception to May 2018 to collect the randomized controlled trials(RCTs) related to the efficacy and safety of TCI compared to MCI with Propofol and Remifentanil for total intravenous anesthesia. Two reviewers independently secreened literature, extracted data,and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results A total of sixteen RCTs were included, involving 1 131 patients. The results of meta-analyses showed that: Compared with the MCI group, the mean arterial pressure changes during induction period (MD=6.81,95%CI 1.54~12.07, P=0.01)was more stable in the TCI group; The emergence time (MD=-2.32, 95%CI -4.17~-0.48, P=0.01), spontaneous breathing recovery time (MD=-1.44, 95%CI -2.86~-0.02, P=0.05) and extubation time (MD=-2.41, 95%CI -4.62~-0.19, P=0.03) were significant shorter in the TCI group. The TCI group significantly reduced Propofol dosage (MD=-48.83, 95%CI -87.80~-9.86, P=0.01) and Remifentanil dosage (MD=-116.62,95%CI -218.95~-14.29, P=0.03), at last, the TCI group decreased the occurrence rate of respiratory depression(RR=0.35,95%CI 0.14~0.84, P=0.02), but there was no statistically significant difference in the intraoperative awareness,hypotension,bradycardia,restlessnes,nausea and vomiting between the two groups. Conclusion Compared with the MCI group, the TCI group can maintain hemodynamic stability during induction, significantly shorten the recovery time of anesthesia, reduce the dosage of anesthetic drugs, and reduce the incidence of respiratory depression.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回