A comparison between vital capacity induction and tidal breathing induction techniques for the induction of anesthesia and compound A production
A comparison between vital capacity induction and tidal breathing induction techniques for the induction of anesthesia and compound A production
复制标题
肺活量诱导和潮式呼吸诱导技术用于麻醉诱导和化合物 A 产生的比较
DOI：
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.2010.17.010
复制
发表时间：
2010-09-05
影响因子：
6.1
通讯作者：
Li En-you
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Liu Shu-jie;Li Yue;Li En-you
背景肺活量诱导和潮气呼吸诱导目前用于七氟烷吸入麻醉诱导。本研究的目的是比较使用七氟烷的诱导时间、吸入诱导并发症，方法将51例接受乳腺肿瘤切除术的美国麻醉医师协会身体状况I-II级的女性患者随机分为两组，一组接受肺活量诱导，另一组接受潮气呼吸诱导，使用8%七氟醚6 L/min。min后置入喉罩。记录诱导时间、吸入诱导并发症和生命体征。结果肺活量诱导法的睫毛反射消失时间明显短于潮气呼吸诱导法（分别为（43.8 ± 13.4）s和（70.8 ± 16.4）s），差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。
Background Vital capacity induction and tidal breathing induction are currently administered for inhalation induction of anesthesia with sevoflurane. The aim of this study was to compare them using sevoflurane with respect to induction time, complications of inhalation induction, and compound A production in adult patients.Methods Fifty-one women with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II undergoing mammary gland tumorectomy were randomly assigned to receive either vital capacity induction or tidal breathing induction with 8% sevoflurane at 6 L/min followed by laryngeal mask airway insertion. Induction times, complications of inhalation induction, and vital signs were recorded. Inspired concentrations of compound A were assayed and sofnolime temperatures were monitored at one-minute intervals after sevoflurane administration.Results The time to loss of eyelash reflex was significantly shorter with the vital capacity induction technique than with the tidal breathing induction technique ((43.8 +/- 13.4) seconds vs. (70.8 +/- 16.4) seconds, respectively; P