瑞马唑仑对不停跳冠状动脉搭桥术麻醉诱导期间血流动力学及术后认知功能影响的研究
Research on the Effects of Remimazolam on Hemodynamics and Postoperative Cognitive Function during Anesthesia Induction in Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
DOI: 10.12677/acm.2024.1461750, PDF, HTML, XML, 下载: 99  浏览: 137  科研立项经费支持
作者: 王泽坤, 邹志进, 郭海燕, 刘 佳*:青岛大学附属医院麻醉科,山东 青岛
关键词: 瑞马唑仑OPCABG丙泊酚血流动力学认知功能Remazolam OPCABG Propofol Hemodynamics Cognitive Function
摘要: 目的:探讨苯磺酸瑞马唑仑对不停跳冠状动脉搭桥术(OPCABG)麻醉诱导的镇静效果及对血流动力学和术后认知功能的影响。方法:采用随机数字表法将40例择期行OPCABG的患者随机分为丙泊酚组(A组)和瑞马唑仑组(B组),每组20例。全麻诱导时A组静脉推注丙泊酚1.5 mg/kg,B组静脉推注瑞马唑仑0.3 mg/kg,给药过程在30秒内完成,待脑电波双频指数(BIS) 60时,给予舒芬太尼0.8~1.0 ug/kg、顺式阿曲库铵0.3~0.5 mg/kg继续麻醉诱导,当肌肉松弛,进行气管插管。观察记录从麻醉诱导开始到BIS为60所需要的时间;记录给药前(T0)、BIS < 60时(T1)、插管前(T2)、插管后1分钟(T3)、手术开始(T4)、手术结束(T5)的BIS值、平均动脉压(MAP)、中心静脉压(CVP)、心率(HR)、心脏指数(CI)及每搏输出量指数(SVI);比较两组患者全麻诱导的镇静效果,术中血流动力学变化情况,是否发生术中知晓,术后认知功能及术后躁动、谵妄等不良反应的发生情况。结果:观察组诱导后BIS < 60所需要的时间为59.40 ± 2.33 s,明显低于对照组67.10 ± 3.77 s,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。观察组麻醉诱导期间血流动力学变化小,两组均无不良事件的发生。结论:瑞马唑仑OPCABG患者麻醉诱导期间血流动力学变化影响更小,能更快地达到满意的麻醉深度,且无术后不良事件的发生,可用于OPCABG的麻醉诱导,具有较高安全性。
Abstract: Objective: To investigate the sedative effects of remimazolam besylate during anesthesia induction for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG), and its impact on hemodynamics and postoperative cognitive function. Methods: Forty patients scheduled for elective OPCABG were randomly divided into two groups using a random number table method: the propofol group (Group A) and the remimazolam group (Group B), with 20 patients in each group. During general anesthesia induction, Group A received an intravenous injection of propofol at 1.5 mg/kg, while Group B received an intravenous injection of remimazolam at 0.3 mg/kg, both administered within 30 seconds. When the bispectral index (BIS) reached 60, sufentanil 0.8~1.0 μg/kg and cisatracurium 0.3~0.5 mg/kg were administered to continue anesthesia induction. Tracheal intubation was performed upon achieving muscle relaxation. The time from the start of anesthesia induction to BIS reaching 60 was recorded. BIS values, mean arterial pressure (MAP), central venous pressure (CVP), heart rate (HR), cardiac index (CI), and stroke volume index (SVI) were recorded at the following time points: before administration (T0), when BIS < 60 (T1), before intubation (T2), 1 minute after intubation (T3), at the start of surgery (T4), and at the end of surgery (T5). The sedative effects of general anesthesia induction, intraoperative hemodynamic changes, intraoperative awareness, postoperative cognitive function, and the occurrence of adverse reactions such as postoperative agitation and delirium were compared between the two groups. Results: The time required for BIS to drop below 60 after induction in the observation group was 59.40 ± 2.33 seconds, significantly lower than the control group’s 67.10 ± 3.77 seconds, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). Hemodynamic changes during anesthesia induction were smaller in the observation group, and no adverse events occurred in either group. Conclusion: Remimazolam results in smaller hemodynamic changes during anesthesia induction in OPCABG patients, achieves satisfactory anesthesia depth more quickly, and is not associated with postoperative adverse events. It can be used for anesthesia induction in OPCABG with high safety.
文章引用:王泽坤, 邹志进, 郭海燕, 刘佳. 瑞马唑仑对不停跳冠状动脉搭桥术麻醉诱导期间血流动力学及术后认知功能影响的研究[J]. 临床医学进展, 2024, 14(6): 94-100. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2024.1461750

1. 前言

随着近年来冠心病患者的数量明显增多,与体外循环相比,非体外循环可以减少手术的创伤和并发症,因此不停跳冠脉搭桥术(off-pump coronary aortic bypass grafting, OPCABG)成为一种常用的治疗方法 [1] 。但是由于不进行体外循环,维持术中血流动力学的稳定和适度的镇痛、镇静就显得尤为重要 [1] 。丙泊酚(propofol)、依托咪酯(etomidate)和咪达唑仑(midazolam)是目前临床上常用的静脉麻醉诱导药物,它们对心血管功能都有不同程度的影响 [2] [3] 。而瑞马唑仑是一种新型的水溶性超短效苯二氮卓类药物,不经过肝脏代谢,1 min左右就能达到血药浓度峰值,与上述镇静药相比,瑞马唑仑具有起效快、恢复快、滞留时间短、对循环呼吸影响小等许多优势 [4] [5] 。本研究旨在探讨瑞马唑仑对于不停跳冠脉搭桥患者的镇静深度及血流动力学和术后认知功能的影响,为瑞马唑仑更好地应用于临床提供理论依据。

2. 资料与方法

2.1. 一般资料

研究对象:本文为前瞻性研究,本研究方案获青岛大学附属医院医院伦理委员会批准,并签署知情同意书。选择青岛大学附属医院择期行OPCABG患者40例,采用双盲随机对照实验,数字表法分为丙泊酚组(A组)和瑞马唑仑组(B组),每组20例。

纳入标椎:1) 年龄不限,性别不限,择期行OPCABG;2) 美国麻醉医师协会分级(American Society of Anesthesiologists, ASA)分级II或III级;3) 纽约心脏协会分级(New York Heart Association, NYHA)分级II到III级;4) 均知情同意并自愿签署知情同意书。

排除标准:1) 心功能不全者(LVEF% < 40%)或严重心力衰竭的患者;2) 未安装起搏器情况下,高度房室传导阻滞;3) 正在使用α受体激动剂治疗高血压或未经治疗的高血压患者;4) 已知对瑞马唑仑、咪达唑仑过敏或有严重过敏史的患者;5) 有严重瓣膜功能障碍,严重的肝肾、心肺功能障碍者;6) 有严重心律失常患者,处于心肌梗塞急性期的患者;7) 再次心脏手术患者;8) 有精神或认知性疾病患者;9) 研究者认为不适于参加此项研究的患者。

剔除标准:1) 术中转体外循环下搭桥的患者;2) 术中除颤的患者;3) 插管过程中出现困难气道的患者;4) 术中低心排出量综合征(Low Cardiac Output Syndrome, LCOS)的患者。

2.2. 方法

麻醉前准备:所有患者术前常规禁饮食,入手术室后安静仰卧5 min,开放外周静脉通路并输注乳酸林格氏液,常规监测心率(HR)、血氧饱和度(SpO2)、心电图(ECG)和脑电双频指数(BIS),局麻下行有创动脉穿刺置管并连接Vigileo血流动力学监护仪监测血压(MAP)、心指数(CI)、每搏量指数(SVI)。诱导前均予以去氮给氧3 min (氧流量5 L/min)。

麻醉诱导:全麻诱导时对照组静脉推注丙泊酚(阿斯利康制药有限公司;批号NJ33) 1.5 mg/kg,实验组静脉推注甲苯磺酸瑞马唑仑(江苏恒瑞药业有限责任公司;H20190034) 0.3 mg/kg,给药过程在30秒内完成,待BIS 60时,给予枸橼酸舒芬太尼(宜昌人福药业有限责任公司;批号:110512) 0.8~1.0 ug/kg、顺式阿曲库铵(江苏恒瑞药业有限责任司;H20150016) 0.3~0.5 mg/kg,待肌肉松弛,进行气管插管。连接Drager Primus麻醉机,VT:8~10 ml/kg,RR:10~12 bpm,I:E为1:2,维持PCO2:35~45 mmHg。诱导后超声引导下右侧行颈内静脉穿刺置管,监测中心静脉压(CVP)。

麻醉维持:对照组术中采用丙泊酚血浆靶控输注(TC1),观察组术中泵入瑞马唑仑1 mg/kg/h,维持BIS值在45~60之间,以0.5%~2%的七氟醚,在吸入氧气分数(FO2)为50%医疗空气中维持麻醉,持续泵注舒芬太尼0.8~1 ug/kg/h,苯磺顺阿曲库铵0.3~0.7 ng/kg/h。

2.3. 观察指标

观察记录从麻醉诱导开始到BIS为60所需要的时间;记录给药前(T0)、BIS < 60时(T1)、插管前(T2)、插管后1分钟(T3)、手术开始(T4)、手术结束(T5)的BIS值、平均动脉压(MAP)、中心静脉压(CVP)、心率(HR)、心脏指数(CI)及每搏输出量指数(SVI);观察记录是否发生术中知晓,术后认知功能及术后躁动、谵妄等不良反应的发生情况。记录术后24小时的VAS疼痛评分、谵妄评估量表(CAM-ICU)和简易精神状态检查量表(MMSE)评分。

2.4. 统计学方法

采用SPSS27.0统计软件进行数据分析。正态分布的计量资料均以均数 ± 标准差(x ± s)表示,两组比较采用t检验,组内比较采用重复测量方差分析,组间比较采用单因素方差分析;计数资料比较采用X2检验。P < 0.05为差异有统计学意义。

3. 结果

3.1. 两组一般资料

本实验最后纳入OPCABG患者40例,每组20例。两组性别、年龄、身高、体重、BMI等比较,差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05),表1

Table 1. Comparison of the general conditions of the two groups of patients (x ± s)

表1. 两组患者一般情况比较(x ± s)

3.2. 两组麻醉诱导镇静效果的比较

A组麻醉诱导后BIS < 60所需要的时间为67.10 ± 3.77 s,明显高于B组59.40 ± 2.33 s,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。

3.3. 两组镇静深度与血流动力学的比较

Table 2. Comparison of BIS and hemodynamic data between two groups of patients at different time points (x ± s)

表2. 两组患者不同时间点的BIS和血流动力学数据比较结果(x ± s)

注:与T0相比,aP < 0.05;与T1相比,bP < 0.05;两组间比较,cP < 0.05。

两组组内和组间各时间点CVP、SVI值差异均无统计学意义(P > 0.05);组间比较,两组BIS值在T2、T3时间点差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05),两组MAP值在T1、T3时间点差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05);组内比较,与T1相比,B组在T3时间点MAP降低,差异统计学意义(P < 0.05),A组在T3时间点MAP无明显降低,差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05),与T0、T1相比,两组在T5时间点CI均升高,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05),表2

3.4. 两组认知功能与不良事件的比较

两组患者术后24小时的VAS、MMSE的评分差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05),表3。两组患者术中均无呛咳、恶性心律失常等不良事件发生。两组患者术后访视均无术中知晓及术后呼吸抑制、躁动、谵妄等不良事件发生。

Table 3. Comparison of postoperative cognitive functions between the two groups of patients (n = 20, x ± s, minutes)

表3. 两组患者术后认知功能比较(n = 20,x ± s,分)

4. 讨论

在全身麻醉下接受不停跳冠状动脉搭桥手术的患者的心输出量和功能储备往往会减少。对于此类患者,麻醉诱导过程中血流动力学的稳定性尤为重要 [6] 。异丙酚是临床常用的静脉麻醉药,具有诱导和苏醒快的优点,但对心肌有较强的抑制作用,导致血压下降和明显的循环波动 [7] 。还有明显的注射痛 [8] 。

瑞马唑仑是一种超短效新型苯二氮卓类药物,类似于咪达唑仑和瑞芬太尼的优势互补 [9] 。主要作用于GABA-A受体,具有诱导快、恢复快、血流动力学稳定、呼吸抑制轻微等优点 [5] [10] 。一项研究表明,恒速输注三小时后,瑞马唑仑的药代动力学半衰期约为咪达唑仑的五分之一 [11] [12] [13] 。瑞马唑仑和异丙酚的半衰期均为7.5分钟 [13] 。与丙泊酚不同,瑞马唑仑会由独立的器官代谢,形成无活性的代谢物 [14] 。此外,瑞马唑仑不影响肝肾功能。而且长时间输注也没有蓄积。目前在临床麻醉中的应用日益广泛,如全身麻醉的诱导和维持 [15] 、胃肠内镜检查 [16] [17] 、支气管镜检查 [18] 、神经外科开颅手术时的术中唤醒等 [19] 。然而,关于其在心脏手术麻醉中的实践的文献很少。

在本研究中,我们使用BIS指数作为脑电图(EEG)监测器来评估麻醉药的效果。瑞马唑仑麻醉的BIS指数合适范围尚不清楚,范围可能更高,例如BIS指数60~70或50~60 [12] 。我们的研究表明,当BIS维持在40~60时,瑞马唑仑组的血流动力学也稳定,这表明BIS指数可以很好地反映瑞马唑仑的麻醉深度。本研究中,所有患者均安全进行了麻醉诱导,未出现严重心动过缓,表明瑞马唑仑用于不停跳冠状动脉搭桥手术患者的麻醉诱导是安全有效的。戴等人 [20] 。克莱曼RB等人,证实瑞马唑仑不会延长QT间期,也不会增加室性心律失常的风险 [21] 。本研究中,不停跳搭桥手术患者麻醉诱导过程中,瑞马唑仑诱导组插管后的血流动力学较丙泊酚组更加稳定,低血压的发生率低于异丙酚诱导组,说明瑞马唑仑诱导更加平稳一些。同时研究表明,两组患者术后24小时的VAS、MMSE的评分差异无统计学意义,两组患者术中均无呛咳、恶性心律失常等不良事件发生,术后访视两组患者均无术中知晓及术后呼吸抑制、躁动、谵妄等不良事件发生。

当然本研究有几个局限性。首先,这是一项单中心研究,因此研究结果的普遍性尚不清楚。其次,一些心功能指标没有测量,如ST-T段变化、心肌肌钙蛋白I水平、室性早搏等。第三,本研究样本量小,纳入患者年龄范围窄。因此,应进行额外的研究以扩大样本量和纳入患者的年龄范围,以更好地评估瑞马唑仑对接受不停跳搭桥手术的患者的获益/风险。第四,本研究中,瑞马唑仑仅设定一种静脉注射剂量。其他静脉注射速度是否能够更好地维持血流动力学稳定性,同时在麻醉诱导过程中保持足够的镇静深度,还有待进一步的临床研究。第四,与其他观察性研究一样,一些混杂因素可能会影响结果。

基金项目

受山东省医学会舒适化医疗科研专项基金支持。

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] Green, R.S. and Butler, M.B. (2016) Postintubation Hypotension in General Anesthesia: A Retrospective Analysis. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine, 31, 667-675.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0885066615597198
[2] Kozarek, K., Sanders, R.D. and Head, D. (2020) Perioperative Blood Pressure in the Elderly. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology, 33, 122-130.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000000820
[3] Paton, D.M. (2021) Remimazolam: A Short-Acting Benzodiazepine for Procedural Sedation. Drugs of Today, 57, 337-346.
https://doi.org/10.1358/dot.2021.57.5.3264119
[4] Sneyd, J.R. and Rigby-Jones, A.E. (2020) Remimazolam for Anaesthesia or Sedation. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology, 33, 506-511.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000000877
[5] Keam, S.J. (2020) Remimazolam: First Approval. Drugs, 80, 625-633.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-020-01299-8
[6] Tang, F., et al. (2021) Remimazolam Benzenesulfonate Anesthesia Effectiveness in Cardiac Surgery Patients under General Anesthesia. World Journal of Clinical Cases, 9, 10595-10603.
https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v9.i34.10595
[7] Doi, M., et al. (2020) Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam versus Propofol for General Anesthesia: A Multicenter, Single-Blind, Randomized, Parallel-Group, Phase IIb/III Trial. Journal of Anesthesia, 34, 543-553.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-020-02788-6
[8] Tan, C.H. and Onsiong, M.K. (1998) Pain on Injection of Propofol. Anaesthesia, 53, 468-476.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2044.1998.00405.x
[9] Tanious, M.K., Beutler, S.S., Kaye, A.D. and Urman, R.D. (2017) New Hypnotic Drug Development and Pharmacologic Considerations for Clinical Anesthesia. Anesthesiology Clinics, 35, E95-E113.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anclin.2017.01.017
[10] Wesolowski, A.M., et al. (2016) Remimazolam: Pharmacologic Considerations and Clinical Role in Anesthesiology. Pharmacotherapy, 36, 1021-1027.
https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.1806
[11] Masui, K. (2020) Remimazolam Besilate, a Benzodiazepine, Has Been Approved for General Anesthesia!! Journal of Anesthesia, 34, 479-482.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-020-02755-1
[12] Antonik, L.J., Goldwater, D.R., Kilpatrick, G.J., Tilbrook, G.S. and Borkett, K.M. (2012) A Placebo-and Midazolam-Controlled Phase I Single Ascending-Dose Study Evaluating the Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and phArmacodynamics of Remimazolam (CNS 7056): Part I. Safety, Efficacy, and Basic Pharmacokinetics. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 115, 274-283.
https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e31823f0c28
[13] Wiltshire, H.R., et al. (2012) A Placebo-and Midazolam-Controlled Phase I Single Ascending-Dose Study Evaluating the Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacodynamics of Remimazolam (CNS 7056): Part II. Population Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Modeling and Simulation. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 115, 284-296.
https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e318241f68a
[14] Schüttler, J., et al. (2020) Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Remimazolam (CNS 7056) after Continuous Infusion in Healthy Male Volunteers: Part I. Pharmacokinetics and Clinical Pharmacodynamics. Anesthesiology, 132, 636-651.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000003103
[15] Doi, M., et al. (2020) Safety and Efficacy of Remimazolam in Induction and Maintenance of General Anesthesia in High-Risk Surgical Patients (ASA Class III): Results of a Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group Comparative Trial. Journal of Anesthesia, 34, 491-501.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-020-02776-w
[16] Rex, D.K., et al. (2018) A Phase III Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam (CNS 7056) Compared with Placebo and Midazolam in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 88, 427-437.E6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2018.04.2351
[17] Dai, G., et al. (2021) Safety and Efficacy of Remimazolam Compared with Propofol in Induction of General Anesthesia. Minerva Anestesiologica, 87, 1073-1079.
https://doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.21.15517-8
[18] Pastis, N.J., et al. (2019) Safety and Efficacy of Remimazolam Compared with Placebo and Midazolam for Moderate Sedation during Bronchoscopy. Chest, 155, 137-146.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2018.09.015
[19] Sato, T., Kato, Y., Yamamoto, M. and Nishiwaki, K. (2020) Novel Anesthetic Agent Remimazolam as an Alternative for the Asleep-Awake-Asleep Technique of Awake Craniotomy. JA Clinical Reports, 6, Article No. 92.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40981-020-00398-5
[20] Dai, Z.L., et al. (2021) Etomidate vs Propofol in Coronary Heart Disease Patients Undergoing Major Noncardiac Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial. World Journal of Clinical Cases, 9, 1293-1303.
https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v9.i6.1293
[21] Kleiman, R.B., et al. (2020) Potential Strategy for Assessing QT/QTc Interval for Drugs That Produce Rapid Changes in Heart Rate: Electrocardiographic Assessment of the Effects of Intravenous Remimazolam on Cardiac Repolarization. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 86, 1600-1609.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.14270