微信公众号

官网二维码
中国癌症防治杂志

中国癌症防治杂志 ›› 2014, Vol. 6 ›› Issue (3): 257-260.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-5671.2014.03.08

• 临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

布托啡诺在盆腹腔恶性肿瘤术后病人自控静脉镇痛中的应用

  

  1. 广西医科大学附属肿瘤医院麻醉科
  • 出版日期:2014-09-25 发布日期:2014-10-17
  • 通讯作者: 黄冰 E-mail:hhhbing@163.com
  • 基金资助:

    广西自然科学基金资助项目（桂科自0640157）

Clinical observations of patient-controlled butorphanol intravenous analgesia following surgery to remove malignant tumors from the lymph node basin and abdomen

  • Online:2014-09-25 Published:2014-10-17

PDF (PC)

630

赞

被引次数

7

摘要：  目的 观察布托啡诺用于恶性肿瘤盆腹腔术后病人自控静脉镇痛（patient controlled intravenous analgesia，PCIA）的疗效及毒副反应发生情况。方法 240例行盆腔和腹腔恶性肿瘤根治性手术患者，随机分为布托啡诺组（A组）和吗啡组（B组），其中A组分为A1~A6组 6个亚组；B组分为B1组、B2组2个亚组，每个亚组30例。术后，A1~A6组患者分别予以1.6 μg/（kg·h）、2.0 μg/（kg·h）、2.4 μg/（kg·h）、2.8 μg/（kg·h）、3.2 μg/（kg·h）和3.6 μg/（kg·h）6个不同剂量的布托啡诺行PCIA治疗；B1组患者选用吗啡行PCIA，B2组则肌注吗啡镇痛。术后24 h观察患者视觉模拟评分（visual analogue scale，VAS）、舒适度评分（bruggrmann comfort scale，BCS）及Ramsay镇静评分以评估PCIA的镇痛和镇静效果，并且记录恶心呕吐、眩晕等阿片类药物毒副反应发生率。结果 A1组、A2组患者的VAS分别为5.58±0.94、5.22±0.86，均较B１组（2.88±1.59）高（P均＜0.05），而BCS分别为1.92±0.92、1.79±0.79，均较B１组（2.32±1.13）低（P均＜0.05）；A3~A6组、B1组患者的VAS均较B2组低（P均＜0.05），而BCS则比B2组高（P均＜0.05）；A5组、A6组患者的Ramsay镇静评分为3.33±1.28、4.13±1.21， 均较其他亚组高（P均＜0.05）。A1~A6组患者的恶心呕吐、腹胀的发生率低于B1组（P均＜0.05）；A1组、A2组、A3组患者眩晕的发生率明显低于其他组（P均＜0.05）；A1组、A2组患者镇痛不全的发生率高于A3~A6组及B1组（P均＜0.05）。结论 布托啡诺用于盆腹腔恶性肿瘤术后PCIA的镇痛疗效满意，且镇静过度、恶心呕吐、腹胀等毒副反应较吗啡少。

关键词: 肿瘤, 盆腹腔, 病人自控静脉镇痛, 布托啡诺, 疗效

Abstract: Objective To examine the therapeutic efficacy and adverse events associated with butorphanol during postoperative patient-controlled intravenous analgesia （PCIA）. Methods A total of 240 patients treated by radical surgery to remove malignant tumors in the lymph node basin and abdomen were randomized into 8 groups of 30 patients each. Groups A1-A6 performed PCIA with different doses of butorphanol［（1.6，2.0，2.4，2.8，3.2 and 3.6 μg/（kg·h）］. Group B1 performed PCIA with morphine，while group B2 received intramuscular injections of morphine. At 24 h after analgesia， self-reported pain assessments were made using the Visual Analogue Scale（VAS），Bruggmann Comfort Scale（BCS）and Ramsay score. Side effects of PCIA were assessed at the same time. Results Groups A1 and A2 had significantly higher VAS scores（5.58±0.94 and 5.22±0.86） than group B2（P＜0.05）and significantly lower BCS scores（1.92±0.92 and 1.79±0.79；P＜0.05）. Conversely，groups A3-A6 and group B1 had lower VAS scores and higher BCS scores than group B2. Ramsay scores were highest in groups A5 （3.33±1.28） and A6（4.13±1.21）. Nausea，vomiting，and abdominal distension occurred to a much lower extent in in groups A1-A3 than in the other groups. Incomplete analgesia occurred to a much lower extent in groups A3-A6 and B1 than in groups A1-A2. Conclusion Butorphanol shows satisfactory analgesic efficacy in PCIA and is associated with lower incidence of adverse reactions (sedation, nausea, vomiting, abdominal distension) than morphine.

Key words: Neoplasm, Abdominopelvic cavity, Patient controlled butorphanol intravenous analgesia, Butorphanol, Curative effect