首页|无插管全麻和麻醉监护下的镇静术在气管食管瘘患者气道介入治疗中的应用效果对比

无插管全麻和麻醉监护下的镇静术在气管食管瘘患者气道介入治疗中的应用效果对比

扫码查看
目的 对比分析无插管全麻与麻醉监护下镇静术在气管食管瘘患者气道介入治疗中的效果。方法 选取接受气道介入治疗的气管食管瘘患者 60 例,均为河南省胸科医院 2019 年 1 月至 2023 年 1 月所收治,按照麻醉方式的不同将其分为全麻组(35 例)与镇静组(25 例),全麻组选择无插管全身麻醉,而镇静组则选择麻醉监护下镇静术,对两组的气促指数评分、卡氏评分、并发症进行观察比较。结果 与术前相比较,术后两组的气促指数评分均明显降低,且镇静组术后的气促指数评分明显低于全麻组,差异有统计学意义(P<0。05)。与入院时相比,出院时两组的卡氏评分均显著提高,且镇静组出院时的卡氏评分明显高于全麻组,差异有统计学意义(P<0。05)。两组的气管插管回重症监护室(ICU)、低血压、低氧血症的发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0。05)。结论 气管食管瘘患者在接受气道介入治疗时,无论是选择无插管全身麻醉,亦或是选择麻醉监护下镇静术,均能让气道介入治疗有序开展,保证其能顺利完成;但是和无插管全身麻醉相比较,采用麻醉监护下镇静术能显著改善患者的气促指数、体力状况与功能状态;在实际的临床治疗中,应对生命体征变化进行密切监测,在确诊麻醉方案时应充分考虑具体的手术方式。
Comparison of the Application Effects between general Anesthesia without Intubation and Sedation under Anesthesia Monitoring in the Airway Intervention Treatment of Patients with Tracheoesophageal Fistula
Objective To compare and analyze the effects between general anesthesia without intubation and sedation under anesthesia monitoring on airway intervention treatment in patients with tracheoesophageal fistula.Methods Sixty patients with tracheoesophageal fistula who received airway intervention treatment were selected,all admitted to Henan Chest Hospital from January 2019 to January 2023.They were divided into general anesthesia group(35 cases)and sedation group(25 cases)according to different anesthesia methods.The general anesthesia group chose general anesthesia without intubation,while the sedation group chose sedation under anesthesia monitoring.The dyspnea index score,Karst score,and complications of the two groups were observed and compared.Results Compared with preoperative,the postoperative dyspnea index scores of both groups were significantly reduced,and the postoperative dyspnea index scores of the sedation group were significantly lower than those of the general anesthesia group,with statistical significance(P<0.05).Compared with the admission,the Karst scores of both groups were significantly improved at discharge,and the Karst scores of the sedative group were significantly higher than those of the general anesthesia group at discharge,with a statistically significant difference(P<0.05).There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of tracheal intubation back to the intensive care unit(ICU),hypotension,and hypoxemia between the two groups(P>0.05).Conclusion When patients with tracheoesophageal fistula receive airway intervention treatment,whether they choose general anesthesia without intubation or sedation under anesthesia monitoring,it can ensure the orderly progress of airway intervention treatment and ensure its smooth completion;However,compared with general anesthesia without intubation,sedation under anesthesia monitoring can significantly improve the patient's shortness of breath index,physical condition,and functional status;In actual clinical treatment,close monitoring of changes in vital signs should be carried out,and specific surgical methods should be fully considered when diagnosing anesthesia plans.

general anesthesia without intubationsedation under anesthesia monitoringtracheoesophageal fistulaairway interventionanesthetic effect

刘磊、钟巍

展开 >

河南省胸科医院 麻醉科,河南 郑州 450000

无插管全麻 麻醉监护下镇静术 气管食管瘘 气道介入 麻醉效果

2024

临床研究
西安交通大学

临床研究

影响因子:0.234
ISSN:2096-1278
年,卷(期):2024.32(2)
  • 16