Email Alert | RSS

北京大学学报（医学版） ›› 2019, Vol. 51 ›› Issue (4): 742-747. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2019.04.026

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

胸部硬膜外给予利多卡因对双腔气管插管患者血流动力学和唤醒水平的影响

刘鲲鹏1,2,王宝宁2,申琰琰2,李卫霞1,李昭1,姚兰2,△()   

  1. 1. 中日友好医院麻醉科, 北京　100029
    2. 北京大学国际医院麻醉科, 北京　102206
  • 收稿日期:2017-07-26 出版日期:2019-08-18 发布日期:2019-09-03
  • 通讯作者: 姚兰 E-mail:yaolan@pkuih.edu.cn

Effects of thoracic epidural administration of lidocaine on hemodynamic and arousal responses of double lumen tracheal intubation during induction of anesthesia

Kun-peng LIU1,2,Bao-ning WANG2,Yan-yan SHEN2,Wei-xia LI1,Zhao LI1,Lan YAO2,△()   

  1. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing 100029,China
    2. Department of Anesthe-siology, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing 102206, China
  • Received:2017-07-26 Online:2019-08-18 Published:2019-09-03
  • Contact: Lan YAO E-mail:yaolan@pkuih.edu.cn

RICH HTML

 4   

PDF (PC)

116

摘要：

目的:对比观察胸部硬膜外给予利多卡因对双腔气管插管患者血流动力学和唤醒水平的影响。方法:选择40例美国麻醉医师协会(American Society of Anesthesiologists,ASA)Ⅰ~Ⅱ级、年龄19~66岁拟在经口双腔气管插管全身麻醉下施择期手术的胸外科患者,分别为常规全身麻醉诱导下直接喉镜双腔气管插管组(T组,20例)和常规全身麻醉诱导复合胸部硬膜外给予利多卡因后实施双腔气管插管组(E组,20例)。麻醉诱导后分别采用Macintosh直接喉镜实施经口气管插管操作,观察两组患者麻醉诱导前后及气管插管时和气管插管后5 min内的血压(blood pressure,BP)、心率(heart rate,HR)、二重指数(rate pressure product,RPP)和脑电双频指数(bispectral index,BIS)的变化,并记录气管插管时间。结果:麻醉诱导后,两组患者的BP和RPP均较麻醉诱导前明显降低。与麻醉诱导后相比较,气管插管后两组患者的BP、HR和RPP明显升高。与麻醉诱导前相比较,气管插管后E组患者BP明显降低,T组患者收缩压(systolic blood pressure,SBP)、舒张压(diastolic blood pressure,DBP)和平均动脉压(mean arterial pressure,MAP)明显升高,且持续时间约1 min。两组患者气管插管后HR均明显升高,T组患者HR增快持续约4 min,E组患者HR增快持续约1 min。与E组相比较,观察期内气管插管后T组SBP、DBP、MAP、HR和RPP均明显升高。与基础值相比,两组患者麻醉诱导后和气管插管后的BIS值均明显降低,且两组之间差异无统计学意义。与E组比较,观察期T组SBP大于基础值30%和RPP大于22 000的发生率明显较高,且E组中未见SBP大于基础值30%和RPP大于22 000的患者。结论:在双腔气管插管期间,硬膜外给予利多卡因可明显减轻插管导致的剧烈血流动力学变化,但对唤醒反应无影响。

关键词: 插管法, 气管内, 利多卡因, 血流动力学, 麻醉, 全身, 麻醉恢复期

Abstract:

Objective: To compare the effects of thoracic epidural administration of lidocaine on hemodynamic and arousal responses of double lumen tracheal intubation during induction of anesthesia. Me-thods: In the study, 40 patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical statuses Ⅰ-Ⅱ,aged 19-66 years,scheduled for elective thoracic surgeries under general anesthesia requiring orotracheal intubation were allocated to either the double-lumen endobronchial intubation (T group) or double-lumen endobronchial intubation after epidural administration of lidocaine (E group). After an intravenous anesthetic induction, the orotracheal double-lumen intubation was performed using a Macintosh direct laryngoscopy (MDLS),respectively. Invasive blood pressure (BP),heart rate (HR) and bispectral index (BIS) were recorded before and after anesthetic induction,immediately after intubation and 5 minutes after intubation with 1-minute interval and the intubation time also noted. The rate pressure pro-duct (RPP) was calculated.Results: After anesthetic induction,BP and RPP in the two groups decreased significantly compared with their preinduction values. In comparison with their postinduction values, the orotracheal intubation in the two groups caused significant increases in BPs, HRs and RPP. In comparison with their preinduction values, BPs decreased significantly in E group, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) increased significantly and lasted for 1 min in T group. The HRs of both groups after intubation were significantly higher than their baseline values,and increased in HR and lasted for 1 min and 4 min in E group and T group, respectively. SBP, DBP, MAP, HR and RPP after intubation in T group were significantly higher than those of E group during the observation period. The values of BIS were similar between both the groups. In T group, the incidences of SBP percent increased>30% of the baseline value and RPP more than 22 000 were significantly higher than in E group. None of the patients in group E had SBP more than 130% of the baseline value and RPP more than 22 000.Conclusion: During double-lumen endobronchial intubation, epidural administration of lidocaine can provide less hemodynamic response and similar arousal response.

Key words: Intubation, intratracheal, Lidocaine, Hemodynamics, Anesthesia, general, Anesthesia recovery period

中图分类号: 

  • R614.42

表1

两组患者的一般资料"

Items Group T (n=20) Group E (n=20)
Gender, Female/Male 5/15 4/16
Age/years, x?±s 51.5±15.0 53.8±9.5
Height/cm, x?±s 166.6±7.9 168.0±8.1
Weight/kg, x?±s 64.1±10.9 69.4±9.5
Type of tube, Left/Right 9/11 12/8
Intubation time/s, x?±s 46.0±16.6 49.0±11.9

表2

两组患者的血流动力学变化比较(x?±s, n=20)"

Variables Baseline Post-induction After intubation Maximal values
0 min 1 min 2 min 3 min 4 min 5 min
SBP/mmHg
Group T 146.3±13.3 98.4±19.5* 160.6±41.4# 165.4±39.7*# 139.8±36.6# 128.4±31.4*# 122.9±25.3*# 118.0±26.0*# 187.6±40.4*#
Group E 139.3.±13.8 86.7±13.6*☆ 112.9±20.0*#☆ 112.2±15.7*#☆ 101.8±12.7*#☆ 93.6±12.3*☆ 89.8±12.5*☆ 86.4±13.1*☆ 131.4±19.4#☆
DBP/mmHg
Group T 75.4±8.5 56.5±10.6* 94.8±25.3*# 93.2±21.6*# 83.0±21.1# 77.7±20.1# 74.0±19.6# 72.5±18.7# 112.3±17.9*#
Group E 71.9±8.6 48.0±7.0*☆ 67.3±14.2#☆ 63.7±8.4*#☆ 58.4±8.5*#☆ 54.2±8.2*#☆ 52.0±8.3*☆ 49.5±8.8*☆ 76.3±12.6#☆
MAP/mmHg
Group T 99.0±8.7 70.4±11.9* 116.7±30.1*# 117.3±23.8*# 101.9±22.6# 94.6±19.4# 90.3±16.9*# 87.6±16.2*# 137.4±22.9*#
Group E 94.3±9.0 60.9±8.8*☆ 82.5±15.9*#☆ 79.8±10.3*#☆ 72.9±9.6*#☆ 67.3±9.3*#☆ 64.6±9.4*☆ 61.8±10.0*☆ 94.7±14.1#☆
HR/(beats/min)
Group T 83.0±13.1 77.8±15.4 103.9±16.3*# 100.8±15.1*# 96.3±15.9*# 94.8±16.6*# 92.7±16.7*# 90.2±16.3# 114.8±16.5*#
Group E 78.7±9.8 72.0±10.8 82.0±14.3*#☆ 82.9±13.3*#☆ 80.6±12.4#☆ 79.0±12.4#☆ 77.6±12.5#☆ 76.2±13.1☆ 92.8±11.9*#☆
BIS
Group T 96.5±1.5 23.5±6.1* 27.6±6.3*# 30.1±8.6*# 32.2±10.1*# 36.8±10.5*# 40.4±12.1*# 45.0±13.4*# 46.3±12.4*#
Group E 97.1±0.9 23.4±6.4* 26.3±2.8* 27.5±5.9*# 31.6±9.6*# 35.1±11.9*# 37.1±12.9*# 39.0±11.9*# 42.4±9.8*#
RPP
Group T 121 00.0±
1 884.9		 7 601.4±
1 909.2*		 16 804.0±
5 469.7*#		 16 603.2±
4 452.3*#		 13 434.7±
4 190.6#		 12 123.5±
3 590.4#		 11 317.5±
2 921.3#		 10 595.8±
2 762.0#		 21 544.7±
5 522.9*#
GroupE 11 260.7±
1 610.1		 6 929.1±
1 557.8*		 9 428.5±
3 085.5#☆		 9 319.4±
2 149.7#☆		 8 259.5±
1 996.2*#☆		 7 449.2±
1 896.1*#☆		 7 013.5±
1 812.5*☆		 6 631.4±
1 825.8*☆		 12 245.1±
2 611.9*#☆

表3

两组患者SBP、HR变化大于基础值30%的发生率及RPP大于22 000的发生率"

Items Group T Group E
SBP percent increase > 30% of baseline value 8 (40.0%) 0*
SBP percent decrease > 30% of baseline value 13 (65.0%) 15 (75.0%)
HR percent increase > 30% of baseline value 12 (60.0%) 6 (30.0%)
HR percent decrease > 30% of baseline value 0 1 (5.0%)
RPP> 22 000 11 (55.0%) 0*
[1] Gholipour BA, Firouzian A, Zamani KA , et al. Effect of etomi-date versus combination of propofol-ketamine and thiopental-ketamine on hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation: A randomized double blind clinical trial[J]. Anesth Pain Med, 2016,6(1):1-8.
[2] Choi BH, Lee YC . Effective bolus dose of sufentanil to attenuate cardiovascular responses in laryngoscopic double-lumen endobronchial intubation[J]. Anesth Pain Med, 2016,6(2):633-640.
[3] Thompson JP, West KJ, Hill AJ . The cardiovascular responses to double lumen endobronchial intubation and the effect of esmolol[J]. Anaesthesia, 1997,52(8):790-794.
[4] Selvaraj V, Manoharan KR . Prospective randomized study to compare between intravenous dexmedetomidine and esmolol for attenuation of hemodynamic to endotracheal intubation[J]. Anesth Essays Res, 2016,10(2):343-348.
[5] Yang W, Geng Y, Liu Y , et al. Comparison of effects of thoracic epidural and intravenous administration of lidocaine on target-controlled infusion of propofol and tracheal intubation response during induction of anesthesia[J]. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth, 2013,27(6):1295-1300.
[6] Buhari FS, Selvaraj V . Randomized controlled study comparing the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation with McCoy, Macintosh, and C-MAC laryngoscopes in adult patients[J]. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol, 2016,32(4):505-509.
[7] Maassen RL, Pieters BM, Maathuis B , et al. Endotracheal intubation using videolaryngoscopy causes less cardiovascular response compared to classic direct laryngoscopy, in cardiac patients according a standard hospital protocol[J]. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg, 2012,63(4):181-186.
[8] Mendonça FT, de Queiroz LM, Guimarães CC , et al. Effects of lidocaine and magnesium sulfate in attenuating hemodynamic response to trachealintubation: single-center, prospective, double-blind, randomized study[J]. Rev Bras Anestesiol, 2017,67(1):50-56.
[9] 薛富善 . 现代呼吸道管理学——麻醉与危重症治疗关键技术[M]. 郑州: 郑州大学出版社, 2002: 1020-1030.
[10] Yoo KY, Jeong CW, Kim WM , et al. Cardiovascular and arousal responses to single-lumen endotracheal and double-lumen endobronchial intubation in the normotensive and hypertensive elderly[J]. Korean J Anesthesiol, 2011,60(2):90-97.
[11] Hamaya Y, Dohi S . Differences in cardiovascular response to airway stimulation at different sites and blockade of the responses by lidocaine[J]. Anesthesiology, 2000,93(1):95-103.
[12] Mangano DT . Perioperative cardiac morbidity[J]. Anesthesiology, 1990,72(1):153-184.
[13] Kasaba T, Kondou O, Youshimura Y . Haemodynamic effects of induction of general anaesthesia with propofol during epidural anaesthesia[J]. Can J Anaesth, 1998,45(11):1061-1065.
[14] Nakatani T, Saito Y, Sakura S , et al. Haemodynamic effects of thoracic epidural anaesthesia during induction of anaesthesia: an investigation into the effects of tracheal intubation during target-controlled infusion of propofol[J]. Anaesthesia, 2005,60(6):530-534.
[15] 张励才 . 麻醉解剖学[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2000: 317-320.
[16] Wacker JR, Wagner BK, Briese V , et al. Antihypertensive therapy in patients with pre-eclampsia: A prospective randomised multicentre study comparing dihydralazine with urapidil[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2006,127(2):160-165.
[17] Möller Petrun A, Kamenik M . Bispectral index-guided induction of general anaesthesia in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery using propofol or etomidate: a double-blind, randomized, clinical trial[J]. Br J Anaesth, 2013,110(3):388-396.
[18] Myles PS, Leslie K , McNeil J, et al. Bispectral index monitoring to prevent awareness during anaesthesia: the B-Aware randomised controlled trial[J]. Lancet, 2004,363(9423):1757-1763.
[19] Kaada BR, Thomas F, Alnaes E , et al. EEG synchronization induced by high frequency midbrain reticular stimulation in anesthetized cats[J]. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, 1967,22(3):220-230.
[20] Kissin I, Stanski DR, Brown PT , et al. Pentobarbital-morphine anesthetic interactions in terms of intensity of noxious stimulation required for arousal[J]. Anesthesiology, 1993,78(4):744-749.
[21] 张金华, 刘鲲鹏, 李成辉 , 等. 瑞芬太尼复合小剂量咪达唑仑用于ERCP监护性麻醉的研究[J]. 临床麻醉学杂志, 2012,28(7):39-42.
[22] 刘鲲鹏, 贾乃光, 赵诗斌 , 等. Shikani喉镜左侧磨牙入路和直接喉镜经口气管插管对血流动力学的影响[J]. 临床麻醉学杂志, 2010,26(9):744-747.
[23] Robinson BF . Relation of heart rate and systolic blood pressure to the onset of pain in angina pectoris[J]. Circulation, 1967,35(6):1073-1083.
[1] 穆东亮,薛铖,安彬,王东信. 硬膜外阻滞与结直肠癌患者术后远期生存状态的关系:一项倾向性评分匹配的回顾性研究[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(6): 1152-1158.
[2] 张庆芬,赵红,冯艺. 不同全身麻醉管理方式与早产儿眼底手术临床结局[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(1): 195-199.
[3] 王菲,赵阳阳,关明,王晶,许向亮,刘宇,翟新利. 静脉给药镇静技术在2 582例口腔外科门诊手术中的临床应用[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(1): 181-186.
[4] 韩永正,井凤云,徐懋,郭向阳. 颈椎脊索瘤行肿瘤切除术的麻醉管理1例[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2019, 51(5): 981-983.
[5] 李岩，王辉，邓莹，姚瑶，李民. 静脉输注右美托咪定对臂丛阻滞效果的随机对照研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2018, 50(5): 845-849.
[6] 李纯青，王东信，韦晓昱. 先天性纤维蛋白原缺乏症产妇的围术期管理：4例报道及文献回顾[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2018, 50(5): 932-936.
[7] 王楠，赵玉鸣. 62例残障儿童及青少年在全身麻醉下牙齿治疗的回顾性研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2018, 50(2): 293-299.
[8] 王博杰，郭超，李春晶，穆东亮. 围麻醉期过敏反应发生率及危险因素分析：一项2012—2017年回顾性调查[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2018, 50(1): 193-199.
[9] 魏滨，张华，徐懋，李民，王军，张利萍，郭向阳，赵一鸣，周方. 不同麻醉方法对髋部骨折老年患者术后转归的影响[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(6): 1008-1013.
[10] 王天骄，刘宇，关明. 咪达唑仑联合丙泊酚靶控输注静脉镇静对拔除下颌第三磨牙患者焦虑水平的影响[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(6): 1044-1049.
[11] 李纯青, 王东信, 程彤, 郑雪宜. 近期上呼吸道感染史对儿童围术期呼吸系统不良事件的影响:前瞻性队列研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(5): 814-818.
[12] 兰轲，杨文博，张晓威，白文俊，李清，徐涛. 氟比洛芬酯在经直肠超声引导前列腺穿刺疼痛控制中的应用[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(4): 643-647.
[13] 郑义林， 宋文芳， 王东信. 可弯曲喉罩与加强型气管导管用于俯卧位腰椎手术的比较[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(2): 262-266.
[14] 王阳，曾鸿，郭向阳，容晓莹. 合并胎盘植入行剖宫产术患者的麻醉方式选择[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(2): 322-325.
[15] 许挺，李民，田杨，宋金涛，倪诚，郭向阳. 超声引导下平面内经外侧肋间入路行胸椎旁阻滞的临床评价[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(1): 148-152.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 张三. 中文标题测试[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2010, 42(1): 1 -10 .
[2] 赵磊, 王天龙 . 右心室舒张末期容量监测用于肝移植术中容量管理的临床研究[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2009, 41(2): 188 -191 .
[3] 万有, , 韩济生, John E. Pintar. 孤啡肽基因敲除小鼠电针镇痛作用增强[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2009, 41(3): 376 -379 .
[4] 张燕, 韩志慧, 钟延丰, 王盛兰, 李玲玲, 郑丹枫. 骨骼肌活组织检查病理诊断技术的改进及应用[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2009, 41(4): 459 -462 .
[5] 赵奇, 薛世华, 刘志勇, 吴凌云. 同向施压测定自酸蚀与全酸蚀粘接系统粘接强度[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2010, 42(1): 82 -84 .
[6] 林红, 王玉凤, 吴野平. 学校生活技能教育对小学三年级学生行为问题影响的对照研究[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2007, 39(3): 319 -322 .
[7] 丰雷, 程嘉, 王玉凤. 注意缺陷多动障碍儿童的运动协调功能[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2007, 39(3): 333 -336 .
[8] 李岳玲, 钱秋瑾, 王玉凤. 儿童注意缺陷多动障碍成人期预后及其预测因素[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2007, 39(3): 337 -340 .
[9] . 书讯[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2007, 39(3): 225 -328 .
[10] 牟向东, 王广发, 刁小莉, 阙呈立. 肺黏膜相关淋巴组织型边缘区B细胞淋巴瘤一例[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2007, 39(4): 346 -350 .
ISSN 1671-167X
CN 11-4691/R
主管单位：中华人民共和国教育部
主办单位：北京大学
地址： 北京市海淀区学院路38号 北京大学医学部 《北京大学学报（医学版）》
邮编：100191
电话：010-82801551
Email： xbbjb2@bjmu.edu.cn

《北京大学学报（医学版）》
微信公众号
版权所有 © 2018 《北京大学学报（医学版）》编辑部