Sedative effect of different doses of Remazolam in patients with mechanical ventilation in ICU and its effect on hemodynamics
YE Chongchong1 XIE Yongpeng2 LUO Jiye1 CHEN Xiaobing1 WANG Jing3 LU Siye1 WANG Yanli1▲
1.Department of Emergency Medicine, the First People’s Hospital of Lianyungang, Jiangsu Province, Lianyungang 222000, China;
2.Department of Intensive Care Unit, the First People’s Hospital of Lianyungang, Jiangsu Province, Lianyungang 222000, China;
3.Department of Medical, the First People’s Hospita of Lianyungangl, Jiangsu Province, Lianyungang 222000, China
Abstract：Objective To observe the sedative effect of different doses of Remazolam in patients with mechanical ventilation in ICU and its effect on hemodynamics. Methods A total of 90 cases with mechanical ventilation in ICU of the First People’s Hospital of Lianyungang from August to December 2020 were selected. They were divided into study group 1, study group 2 and study group 3 according to the random number table method, with 30 cases in each group. Rimazolam was administered intravenously with 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 mg/(kg·h), respectively. The sedative effect of three groups were compared. Changes in mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) at before administration (T0), immediately after administration (T1), 1 h after administration (T2) and 6 h after administration (T3) of three groups were recorded. The incidence of adverse reactions in three groups was recorded. Results The target sedation time of study group 2 and study group 3 were shorter than those of study group 1, and the recovery time after drug withdrawal were longer than those of study group 1, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05); the target sedation time of study group 3 was shorter than that of study group 2, and the recovery time after drug withdrawal was longer than that of study group 2, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). In three groups, MAP and HR at T2 were lower than those at T0 and T1, and MAP and HR at T3 were higher than those at T2, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in MAP and HR of the same points among three groups (P > 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions in study group 3 was higher than that in study group 1 and study group 2, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between study group 1 and study group 2 (P > 0.05). Conclusion The sedative effect of Remazolam in ICU patients with mechanical ventilation is satisfactory, and it has little effect on hemodynamics and good safety. The best dose is 0.3 mg/(kg·h).
叶冲冲1 谢永鹏2 骆继业1 陈晓兵1 王静3 陆思烨1 王言理1▲. 不同剂量瑞马唑仑在ICU机械通气患者中的镇静效果及对血流动力学的影响[J]. 中国医药导报, 2021, 18(22): 121-124.
YE Chongchong1 XIE Yongpeng2 LUO Jiye1 CHEN Xiaobing1 WANG Jing3 LU Siye1 WANG Yanli1▲. Sedative effect of different doses of Remazolam in patients with mechanical ventilation in ICU and its effect on hemodynamics. 中国医药导报, 2021, 18(22): 121-124.
[1] 王寅，夏成虎，胡斌.有创机械通气治疗ICU重症心力衰竭患者的效果分析[J].实用心脑肺血管病杂志，2019，27（1）：96-98.
[2] 何孔亮.序贯机械通气治疗重症肺炎患者呼吸衰竭的临床效果及耐受性评价[J].重庆医学，2018，47（1）：99-101.
[3] Chanques G，Constantin JM，Devlin JW，et al. Analgesia and sedation in patients with ARDS [J]. Intensive Care Med，2020，46（12）：2342-2356.
[4] 郭昆，张红英，彭四萍.每日唤醒与舒适化镇痛镇静两种方案在ICU机械通气患者中的应用比较[J].中华危重病急救医学，2018，30（10）：950-952.
[5] 潘星羽，张近波，金晓红，等.右美托咪定镇静对机械通气脓毒症患者肠屏障功能的影响[J].中国临床药理学杂志，2018，34（2）：120-122.
[6] 管忍，董希玮，马宁，等.基于计算机模拟概述创新性软药瑞马唑仑[J].国际麻醉学与复苏杂志，2020，41（10）：946-954.
[7] 史媛，蒋毅，董贝贝，等.瑞马唑仑和咪达唑仑对健康老龄大鼠认知功能影响的比较[J].中华麻醉学杂志，2020， 40（9）：1089-1092.
[8] Apfelbaum JL，Connis RT. The American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Parameter Methodology [J]. Anesthesiology，2019，130（3）：367-384.
[9] 董世笑.地佐辛在老年患者腹腔镜手术后镇痛中的应用效果分析[J].腹腔镜外科杂志，2020，25（8）：80-83.
[10] Mahmoud L，Zullo AR，et al. Outcomes of protocolised analgesia and sedation in a neurocritical care unit [J]. Brain Inj，2018，32（7）：941-947.
[11] 赵千文，吴海华，谢玉萍.舒芬太尼联合咪达唑仑对机械通气脓毒症患者镇静效果及炎症因子的影响[J].临床肺科杂志，2019，24（8）：1446-1449，1469.
[12] 张蓓蓓，殷丽萍，张家留，等.咪唑安定、丙泊酚和右美托咪啶三种镇静方案在感染性休克患者中的应用效果比较[J].河北医药，2018，40（20）：3054-3057，3063.
[13] 林岚，郭静，余革，等.超声瞬时波强技术评价丙泊酚与依托咪酯单剂量对循环动力学的影响[J].广东医学，2018，39（12）：1884-1887.
[14] 余美红.ICU机械通气患者创伤后应激障碍现状及其影响因素分析[J].浙江创伤外科，2019，24（4）：750-751.
[15] 吕娜.右美托咪定与咪达唑仑对小儿泌尿外科手术麻醉效果和血流动力学的影响比较[J].空军医学杂志，2019， 35（1）：60-64.
[16] 黄建成，陈川钦，邓文娟，等.右美托咪定联合咪达唑仑镇静在剖宫产术中的应用[J].华南国防医学杂志，2018， 32（4）：17-21.
[17] Liu Y，Xu X，Xie J，et al. Design，Synthesis，and Biological Evaluation of Novel CNS 7056 Derivatives as Sedatives in Rats and Rabbits [J]. Chem Biol Drug Des，2016， 88（1）：38-42.
[18] Cornett EM，Novitch MB，Brunk AJ，et al. New benzodiazepines for sedation [J]. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol，2018，32（2）：149-164.
[19] 朱燕珍，黄妃文，卢锡林.视频脑电监测在静脉用苯二氮卓类药物控制癫痫发作中的应用[J].实用医学杂志，2018，34（4）：657-659，684.
[20] Pambianco DJ，Borkett KM，Riff DS，et al. A phase Ⅱb study comparing the safety and efficacy of remimazolam and midazolam in patients undergoing colonoscopy [J]. Gastrointest Endosc，2016，83（5）：984-992.
[21] Sneyd JR，Rigby-Jones AE. Remimazolam for anaesthesia or sedation [J]. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol，2020，33（4）：506-511.
[22] 黄世杰.用于结肠镜操作的超短效镇静/麻醉药瑞马唑仑[J].国际药学研究杂志，2015，42（3）：369.
[23] Wesolowski AM，Zaccagnino MP，Malapero RJ，et al. Remimazolam：Pharmacologic considerations and clinical role in anesthesiology [J]. Pharmacotherapy，2016，36（9）：1021-1027.
[24] 陈瑜，蔡姝，朱晓刚，等.瑞马唑仑用于老年患者全麻诱导时的镇静效果[J].中华麻醉学杂志，2020，40（8）：974-976.
[25] Pastis NJ，Yarmus LB，Schippers F，et al. Safety and efficacy of remimazolam compared with placebo and midazolam for moderate sedation during bronchoscopy [J]. Chest，2019，155（1）：137-146.
京公网安备 11010502046598号