| Japanese |
|---|
| Title | チオペンタール, プロポフォール, ミダゾラムを用いた麻酔導入時の循環動態の検討 |
|---|
| Subtitle | 原著 |
|---|
| Authors | 足立裕史, 高松太, 原田昌明, 唐澤富士夫, 佐藤哲雄 |
|---|
| Authors(kana) | |
|---|
| Organization | 防衛医科大学校麻酔学教室 |
|---|
| Journal | 循環制御 |
|---|
| Volume | 18 |
|---|
| Number | 1 |
|---|
| Page | 36-39 |
|---|
| Year/Month | 1997/ |
|---|
| Article | 原著 |
|---|
| Publisher | 日本循環制御医学会 |
|---|
| Abstract | 「要旨」合併症のない予定手術患者33名を, チオペンタール群(5mg/kg, n=12), プロポフォール群(2mg/kg, n=11), またはミダゾラム群(0.2mg/kg, n=10)に分け, ベクロニウム0.1mg/kgを併用して麻酔導入を行い, 気管内挿管時の循環動態を比較検討した. いずれの群でも導入薬投与後, 収縮期血圧は有意に低下したが, 拡張期血圧はチオペンタール群のみ低下した. 気管内挿管直後の収縮期血圧と拡張期血圧はいずれの群でも上昇し, ミダゾラム群の収縮期血圧は他よりも有意に高かった. 気管内挿管時の心拍数は, いずれの群でも増加し, 群間での差を認めなかった. 導入後のQTc間隔はチオペンタール群が, プロポフォール群, ミダゾラム群よりも有意に延長した. 今回何れの群でも不整脈を生じた症例はなかった. 以上より, 導入にはプロポフォールが若干有利と考えられるが, 明らかな差は僅かであった. |
|---|
| Practice | 基礎医学・関連科学 |
|---|
| Keywords | Thiopental, Propofol, Midazolam, Induction of anesthesia. |
|---|
| English |
|---|
| Title | Hemodynamic Changes during Induction of Anesthesia with Thiopental, Propofol, or Midazolam. |
|---|
| Subtitle | |
|---|
| Authors | Yushi Adachi, Futoshi Takamatsu, Masaaki Harada, Fujio Karasawa, Tetuo Sato |
|---|
| Authors(kana) | |
|---|
| Organization | Department of Anesthesiology, National Defense Medical College |
|---|
| Journal | Circulation Control |
|---|
| Volume | 18 |
|---|
| Number | 1 |
|---|
| Page | 36-39 |
|---|
| Year/Month | 1997/ |
|---|
| Article | Original article |
|---|
| Publisher | Japan Society of Circulation Control |
|---|
| Abstract | We compared hemodynamic effects of intravenous anesthetics, thiopental, propofol, or midazolam for induction of anesthesia. Thirty-three patients undergoing elective surgery were randomly allocated into 3 groups；thiopental (5 mg/kg, n=12), propofol (2 mg/kg, n=11), and midazolam (0.2 mg/kg, n=10), groups. After 2.5 minutes from the injection of these agents and vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg, their tracheas were intubated. We measured blood pressure, heart rate, and recorded ECG prior to induction of anesthesia, before intubation, after intubation, and 10 minutes after intubation. QT interval was measured on ECG strips and corrected QT intervals by heart rate according to Bazett's formula：QTc=QT√R-R. Propofol showed a significant decrease of systolic arterial pressure after induction of anesthesia and attenuated an increase of systolic arterial pressure after tracheal intubation compared with midazolam, however it was not so effective to attenuate the increase of heart rate. Propofol and midazolam showed less prolongation of QTc interval than thiopental. We did not experience any arrythmia during this study. We conclude that propofol is slightly superior to thiopental and midazolam for induction of anesthesia. (Circ Cont 18：36〜39, 1997) |
|---|
| Practice | Basic medicine |
|---|
| Keywords | Thiopental, Propofol, Midazolam, Induction of anesthesia. |
|---|