midazolam

咪达唑仑
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    二十个较小的雪佛兰(Tragulussp。),10男10女,用布托啡诺-咪达唑仑-美托咪定(BMidM)联合麻醉,评估该方案在该属中的短期程序的有效性。动物接受BMidM(0.32、0.06、0.15mg/kg,分别)通过手注射肌肉内。一旦动物达到持续30分钟的麻醉工作深度(范围12-60分钟),就记录生理变量。在程序结束时,美托咪定和布托啡诺分别用阿司唑(0.75mg/kg)和纳曲酮(0.3mg/kg)肌内拮抗,分别。诱导和恢复分别为9.4±4.0min和10.2±4.1min,分别。五只动物需要通过面罩补充异氟烷以达到轻度麻醉。在性别之间比较了达到麻醉各个阶段的时间。达到不同麻醉阶段的男性和女性之间没有差异,除了到达卧床阶段所需的时间,其中女性在注射拮抗剂后需要更长的时间(11.8分钟比男性为7.8分钟)(P=0.02)。心率,呼吸频率,直肠温度,和外周血血红蛋白氧饱和度在性别之间相似,并且在整个过程中保持稳定。在所测试的剂量下,BMidM是一种可靠且安全的方案,微创手术在较小的chevrotains快速诱导和顺利恢复无并发症。
    Twenty lesser chevrotains (Tragulus sp.), 10 males and 10 females, were anesthetized with a combination of butorphanol-midazolam-medetomidine (BMidM), to assess the efficacy of this protocol for short procedures in this genus. The animals received BMidM (0.32, 0.06, 0.15 mg/kg, respectively) intramuscularly via hand injection. Physiological variables were recorded once the animals reached a working depth of anesthesia that lasted 30 min (range 12-60 min). At the end of the procedure, medetomidine and butorphanol were antagonized with atipamezole (0.75 mg/kg) and naltrexone (0.3 mg/kg) intramuscularly, respectively. Induction and recovery were 9.4 ± 4.0 min and 10.2 ± 4.1 min, respectively. Supplementation with isoflurane via face mask was required in five animals to reach light anesthesia. Times to reach the various stages of anesthesia were compared between sexes. There was no difference between males and females reaching the different stages of anesthesia, except for the time required to reach the ambulatory stage, in which females took a significantly longer time (11.8 min vs 7.8 min for the males) to stand after the injection of the antagonists (P = 0.02). Heart rate, respiratory rate, rectal temperature, and peripheral hemoglobin oxygen saturation were similar between sexes and stable throughout the procedure. At the dosage tested BMidM was a reliable and safe protocol for short, minimally invasive procedures in lesser chevrotains with a fast induction and smooth recovery without complications.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:儿科牙医的主要目标是解决和减少儿童在牙科治疗过程中的恐惧和焦虑,尤其是当传统的行为指导策略失败时。在这种情况下,药物的使用成为一个需要考虑的重要因素。
    目的:本研究的目的是比较疗效,安全,儿童牙科患者鼻内氯胺酮(INK)与鼻内咪达唑仑和右美托咪定(INMzD)组合用于程序镇静的可接受性。
    方法:47名3-9岁需要拔牙等牙科手术的儿童,牙髓切除术,并采用包络画法将修复体随机分为两组。组INK接受7mg/kg的INK,而INMzD组接受咪达唑仑喷雾剂(0.3mg/kg)和雾化右美托咪定(3μg/kg)的联合治疗.
    结果:墨水显示起病更快,更快的恢复,和更短的放电时间比INMZD。两组患者生理指标均可接受,术后无并发症发生。INK比INMzD更被患者接受。
    结论:在疗效方面,安全,和可接受性,INK优于INMzD联合用于程序镇静。
    BACKGROUND: The main goal of the pediatric dentist is to address and reduce children\'s fear and anxiety during the dental treatment, especially when conventional behavior-guiding strategies fail. In such cases, the use of pharmacological agents becomes an essential factor to consider.
    OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of intranasal ketamine (INK) with the combination of intranasal midazolam and dexmedetomidine (INMzD) in pediatric dental patients for the procedural sedation.
    METHODS: Forty-seven children aged 3-9 years who required dental procedures such as extractions, pulpectomy, and restorations were randomly distributed into two groups using the envelope drawing method. Group INK received 7 mg/kg INK, whereas Group INMzD received a combination of midazolam spray (0.3 mg/kg) and atomized dexmedetomidine (3 μg/kg).
    RESULTS: INK showed faster onset, faster recovery, and shorter discharge time than INMzD. Both groups had acceptable physiological parameters and no postoperative complications. INK was more accepted by the patients than INMzD.
    CONCLUSIONS: In terms of efficacy, safety, and acceptability, INK outperformed the combination of INMzD for the procedural sedation.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:儿科急诊科的痛苦手术通常需要使用镇静和镇痛以确保充分的疼痛控制,儿童和青少年的权利。这项研究旨在描述在儿科急诊科使用静脉药物进行的程序镇静和镇痛。方法对2018年10月至2023年12月在里斯本都市区某二级医院儿科急诊科进行静脉镇痛的回顾性描述性研究。干预的类型,使用的药物,并对不良事件进行分析。结果共有615例患者纳入研究;65.7%(n=404)为男性,中位年龄6岁。最常见的手术是伤口缝合(50.9%,n=313)和骨折复位(36.3%,n=223)。用于镇静和镇痛的药物为氯胺酮(99.2%,n=610),咪达唑仑(95.8%,n=589),异丙酚(1.6%,n=10),和吗啡(0.5%,n=3)。大多数患者联合使用咪达唑仑和氯胺酮(93.8%,n=577)。42例患者共发生50起不良事件(8.1%)。最常见的副作用是瞬时氧饱和度(2%,n=12),呕吐(1.5%,n=9),呼吸暂停/呼吸暂停(1%,n=6),和幻觉(0.8%,n=5)。不良事件的发生不呈剂量依赖性(p>0.05)。呼吸系统并发症无需侵入性干预即可解决。68.1%(n=419)的儿童被儿科强化医生镇静,26.7%的普通儿科医生(n=164),2%(n=12)的儿科住院医师。结论这项研究的结果表明,静脉镇痛,特别是氯胺酮和咪达唑仑的组合,是儿科患者的安全镇静方法,不良事件发生率低。
    Background Painful procedures in the pediatric emergency department often require the use of sedation and analgesia to ensure adequate pain control, a right of children and adolescents. This study aims to describe the procedural sedation and analgesia with intravenous medications performed in a pediatric emergency department. Methods This is a retrospective descriptive study of intravenous sedoanalgesia used in a pediatric emergency department of a level II district hospital in the Lisbon metropolitan area from October 2018 to December 2023. The type of intervention, drugs used, and adverse events were analyzed. Results A total of 615 patients were included in the study; 65.7% (n=404) were male with a median age of 6 years. The most frequently performed procedures were wound suturing (50.9%, n=313) and fracture reduction (36.3%, n=223). The drugs used for sedation and analgesia were ketamine (99.2%, n=610), midazolam (95.8%, n=589), propofol (1.6%, n=10), and morphine (0.5%, n=3). The majority of patients received midazolam and ketamine in association (93.8%, n=577). A total of 50 adverse events (8.1%) were recorded in 42 patients. The most frequent side effects were transient oxygen desaturation (2%, n=12), vomiting (1.5%, n=9), apnea/bradypnea (1%, n=6), and hallucinations (0.8%, n=5). The occurrence of adverse events was not dose-dependent (p >0.05). Respiratory complications resolved without requiring invasive interventions. Children were sedated by a pediatric intensivist in 68.1% (n=419), by a general pediatrician in 26.7% (n=164), and by a pediatric resident in 2% (n=12). Conclusions The results of this study demonstrate that intravenous sedoanalgesia, particularly the combination of ketamine and midazolam, is a safe method for sedation in pediatric patients, with a low rate of adverse events.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Case Reports
    咪达唑仑的静脉内(IV)给药可导致癫痫样活动或运动。本报告描述了5例静脉注射咪达唑仑后出现癫痫样运动的新生儿。这些患者在2019年至2022年之间出现,并被送往位于马斯喀特学术中心内的新生儿重症监护病房。阿曼。静脉注射咪达唑仑后不久发生异常运动。接受咪达唑仑输注后,没有患者出现癫痫样运动。癫痫样运动是自发或通过抗癫痫药物中止的。此外,任何婴儿在治疗后期均未观察到癫痫复发.由于这种不良反应可能与推注给药的速度有关,静脉注射咪达唑仑必须在2-3分钟内缓慢推注,然后缓慢冲洗生理盐水。为了防止咪达唑仑对新生儿的潜在不良影响,新生儿看护者必须意识到这一点。
    An intravenous (IV) administration of midazolam may result in seizure-like activity or movement. This report describes 5 neonates who developed seizure-like movements after IV midazolam injection. The patients presented between 2019 and 2022 and were admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit located within an academic centre in Muscat, Oman. The abnormal movements occurred shortly after IV bolus administration of midazolam. None of the patients experienced seizure-like movements after receiving midazolam infusions. The seizure-like movements were aborted either spontaneously or by antiseizure medications. In addition, seizure recurrence was not observed in any of the infants during the later stages of their treatment. Since this adverse effect might be related to the speed of the bolus administration, IV midazolam must be given as a slow bolus over 2-3 minutes followed by a slow flush of normal saline. To prevent midazolam\'s potential adverse effect on newborns, neonatal caregivers must be aware of it.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Letter
    暂无摘要。
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:生命末期的镇静用于缓解包括躁动和谵妄在内的痛苦症状。标准护理可包括输注苯二氮卓类药物或抗精神病药。这些药物通常会导致深度镇静,失去与亲人的互动,这可能是令人沮丧的。
    目的:DREAMS(右美托咪定用于减少生命末期激动和优化镇静)试验旨在比较α-2激动剂右美托咪定的镇静和抗谵妄作用,一种新颖的姑息治疗镇静剂,与咪达唑仑相比,在生命结束时通过皮下输注给予苯二氮卓类药物,两种药物的剂量都是针对较轻的,或潜在的交互式镇静剂。
    方法:参与者从新南威尔士州地区姑息治疗小组下接受临终关怀的成年住院患者中招募,澳大利亚。纳入标准包括18岁以上的患者,在生命结束时偏爱较轻的镇静剂。排除标准包括严重心功能不全(右美托咪定禁忌症)。参与者同意并被列入待定治疗名单。在经历终端恶化时,患者被随机分为第1组(右美托咪定)或第2组(咪达唑仑)作为治疗组.通过连续皮下输注施用这些治疗。通过里士满激动镇静量表-姑息版和纪念谵妄评估评分来测量患者的意识和躁动水平。里士满激动-镇静量表-姑息性评估由护理人员和医务人员进行,而纪念谵妄评估评分仅由医务人员进行。家属和患者被要求完成,作为能够,患者舒适度评估表,来衡量对痛苦的看法。收集数据并与所给予的突破性药物剂量相匹配,以及病历中的定性评论。此外,该研究追踪了作为姑息治疗结果一部分记录的症状和患者功能状态,监测姑息治疗中症状结局的国家跟踪项目.
    结果:DREAMS试验于2020年5月获得资助,并于2020年11月获得伦理委员会的批准,并于2021年5月开始招募参与者。数据收集于2021年5月开始,预计将持续到2024年12月。预计将于2024年至2026年公布结果。
    结论:姑息治疗中镇静剂给药的证据并不可靠,标准护理主要基于临床经验,而不是强有力的科学证据。这项研究很重要,因为它将比较用于临终治疗的标准镇静剂和新型镇静剂。通过评估两者的潜在疗效和益处,它旨在通过提供有针对性的镇静剂来优化死亡质量,从而改善垂死患者与亲人之间的沟通。
    背景:澳大利亚新西兰临床试验注册ACTRN12621000052831;https://uat。anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=380889。
    DERR1-10.2196/55129。
    BACKGROUND: Sedation at the end of life is used to relieve distressing symptoms including agitation and delirium. Standard care may include infused benzodiazepines or antipsychotics. These agents often result in deep sedation with loss of interaction with loved ones, which may be distressing.
    OBJECTIVE: The DREAMS (Dexmedetomidine for the Reduction of End-of-life Agitation and for optiMised Sedation) trial aimed to compare the sedative and antidelirium effects of the alpha-2 agonist dexmedetomidine, a novel palliative care sedative, compared with midazolam, a benzodiazepine when administered by subcutaneous infusion at the end of life, with doses of both agents targeting lighter, or potentially interactive sedation.
    METHODS: Participants were recruited from adult inpatients admitted for end-of-life care under a palliative care team in regional New South Wales, Australia. Inclusion criteria included patients older than 18 years, with a preference for lighter sedation at the end of life. Exclusion criteria included severe cardiac dysfunction (contraindication to dexmedetomidine). Participants consented and were placed on a treatment-pending list. Upon experiencing terminal deterioration, patients were randomized to either arm 1 (dexmedetomidine) or arm 2 (midazolam) as their treatment arm. These treatments were administered by continuous subcutaneous infusion. The level of consciousness and agitation of the patients were measured by the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-Palliative version and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Score. Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-Palliative version assessments were performed by both nursing and medical staff, while Memorial Delirium Assessment Score assessments were carried out by medical staff only. Families and patients were asked to complete, as able, a patient comfort assessment form, to gauge perceptions of distress. Data were collected and matched with the breakthrough medication doses administered, along with qualitative comments in the medical record. In addition, the study tracked symptoms and patient functional status that were recorded as part of the Palliative Care Outcomes Collaborative, a national tracking project for monitoring symptom outcomes in palliative care.
    RESULTS: The DREAMS trial was funded in May 2020, approved by the ethics committee in November 2020, and started recruiting participants in May 2021. Data collection commenced in May 2021 and is anticipated to continue until December 2024. Publication of results is anticipated from 2024 to 2026.
    CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for sedative dosing in palliative care for distress and agitation is not robust, with standard care based primarily on clinical experience and not robust scientific evidence. This study is important because it will compare a standard and a novel sedative used in end-of-life treatment. By assessing the potential efficacy and benefits of both, it seeks to optimize the quality of dying by providing targeted sedation that can improve the communication between dying patients and their loved ones.
    BACKGROUND: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Register ACTRN12621000052831; https://uat.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=380889.
    UNASSIGNED: DERR1-10.2196/55129.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • DOI:
    文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:肠套叠是一种常见的儿科紧急情况。护理标准包括使用空气或液体灌肠的减少被认为是安全的程序。镇静诱导的肌肉松弛从而优化治疗。我们提出了一项为期6年的全面研究,涉及使用氯胺酮和咪达唑仑的非镇静剂减少(NSR)与镇静剂减少(SR)。
    方法:2017年1月至2023年7月在日惹进行了一项回顾性队列研究,印度尼西亚。共有85名被诊断为肠套叠的儿童接受了静液减压术,采用水溶性造影剂注入直肠。减少失败的病例立即接受手术干预。
    结果:在85例肠套叠患儿中,22名儿童接受了SR手术,63名儿童接受了NSR手术。我们发现17例(77%)的SR手术成功,其中1例复发,另外5例(23%)由于Meckel-憩室而进行了手术复位,例如吻合切除(3例)。另一方面,我们发现NSR手术成功24例(38.0%),其中1例复发。其他39例因NSR失败的患者继续手术减少。对31例患者进行了手动复位,其中1例因肺部出血死亡。吻合切除(4例)和,造口(4例)决定进行其他手术复位。本研究的相对危险度(RR)为2.02(p值<0.05,CI95%)。
    结论:实施SR程序可能会降低小儿肠套叠的手术率,从而加强患者管理。此外,在镇静程序下,静液还原的成功率更高。我们有助于发展小儿肠套叠管理非手术方法的见解,尤其是在日惹。
    Intussusception is a prevalent paediatric emergency condition. The standard of care involves the reduction using air or fluid enema is considered a safe procedure. Sedation-induced muscle relaxation thus optimising the treatment. We present a comprehensive 6- year study involving non sedative reduction (NSR) versus sedative reduction (SR) utilising ketamine and midazolam.
    A retrospective cohort study was conducted between January 2017 and July 2023 in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. A total of 85 children diagnosed with intussusception underwent hydrostatic reduction, which employed water-soluble contrast administered into the rectum. Cases that were unsuccessful in reduction underwent immediate surgical intervention.
    Among the 85 children with intussusception underwent reduction, 22 children underwent the SR procedure and 63 underwent NSR procedure. We found a successful outcome in 17 cases (77%) of SR procedure with one recurrent and the other five (23%) got surgical reduction such as anastomosis resection (3 cases) due to Meckel- Diverticula. On the other hand, we found 24 successful cases (38.0%) in NSR procedure with one recurrent after case. 39 others who failed with NSR continued to surgical reduction. Manual reduction was done for 31 patients with one case mortality due to pulmonary bleeding. Anastomosis resection (4 cases) and, stoma (4 cases) were decided for others surgical reduction. The relative risk (RR) on this study was 2.02 (p value < 0.05, CI 95%).
    Implementation of the SR procedure may reduce surgery rates in paediatric intussusception, thereby enhancing patient management. Furthermore, the success rate of hydrostatic reduction higher in under sedation procedure. We contribute to evolve insight of non-operative approaches of paediatric intussusception management, particularly in the Yogyakarta.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    右美托咪定(DEX)是一种高度选择性的α2受体激动剂,其优点是比其他镇静剂引起的呼吸抑制更少。我们评估了在心导管插入期间接受咪达唑仑和喷他佐辛的儿科患者中DEX对镇静的附加作用。
    120例儿科深度镇静患者的心导管插入术,金泽大学医院2013年1月至2018年8月:63例无DEX的手术(即,非DEX组)和57例DEX程序(即,DEX组)。两组均使用静脉注射咪达唑仑和喷他佐辛,DEX组未使用初始负荷剂量(0.6μg/kg/h)。我们回顾性调查了导管插入术中的并发症,剂量的镇静剂,和生命体征的变化。
    非DEX组导管插入术中需要给氧的低氧血症倾向于高于DEX组(4.8%vs.0%)。DEX组的咪达唑仑的额外剂量(中位数[IQR]:0.05mg/kg[0-0.11])明显低于非DEX组[0.09mg/kg(0-0.23),p=0.0288]。在具有低氧血症的非DEX组中,咪达唑仑的额外剂量显着高于在无低氧血症的非DEX组中使用的剂量。DEX组没有发生低于心动过缓标准的心动过缓病例,也没有发生严重并发症。
    在小儿心导管插入术中使用静脉注射DEX联合咪达唑仑和喷他佐辛可能减少对额外剂量咪达唑仑的需求,并可能有助于预防与镇静剂引起的呼吸抑制相关的气道并发症。
    UNASSIGNED: Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a highly selective alpha 2 receptor agonist that has the advantage of causing less respiratory depression than other sedative agents. We evaluated the add-on effects of DEX on sedation among pediatric patients who received midazolam and pentazocine during cardiac catheterization.
    UNASSIGNED: 120 cardiac catheterization procedures in 110 patients under deep sedation at Department of Pediatrics, Kanazawa University Hospital from January 2013 to August 2018: 63 procedures without DEX (i.e., non-DEX group) and 57 procedures with DEX (i.e., DEX group). Intravenous midazolam and pentazocine were used in both groups, and DEX without an initial loading dose (0.6 μg/kg/h) was used in the DEX group. We retrospectively investigated complications during catheterization, doses of sedative agents, and changes in vital signs.
    UNASSIGNED: Hypoxemia requiring oxygen administration during catheterization tended to be higher in the non-DEX group than in the DEX group (4.8% vs. 0%). Additional dose of midazolam was significantly lower in the DEX group (median [IQR]: 0.05 mg/kg [0-0.11]) than in the non-DEX group [0.09 mg/kg (0-0.23), p = 0.0288]. The additional dose of midazolam in the non-DEX group with hypoxemia was significantly higher than the dose used in the non-DEX group without hypoxemia. No case of bradycardia below the criteria for bradycardia occurred and no serious complications occurred in the DEX group.
    UNASSIGNED: The use of intravenous DEX in combination with midazolam and pentazocine in pediatric cardiac catheterization may reduce the need for an additional dose of midazolam and may contribute to the prevention of airway complications associated with respiratory depression caused by sedative agents.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:右美托咪定对于在柔性支气管镜检查期间诱导镇静具有可接受的临床效用。减少其剂量不仅可以改善其心血管副作用,但也保持其临床实用性。
    方法:将18至65岁的患者随机分为右美托咪定(0.75µg/kg)或咪达唑仑-芬太尼组(0.035mg/kg咪达唑仑和25mcg芬太尼)。主要结果指标是综合评分。记录的其他参数是:氧饱和度,血液动力学变量,修改后的Ramsay镇静评分,疼痛强度和痛苦的数值评定量表(NRS),咳嗽视觉模拟量表评分,抢救药物剂量,容易做支气管镜检查,以及支气管镜检查后24小时患者的反应。
    结果:在每个手臂中,31例患者入组。右美托咪定组26例患者和咪达唑仑-芬太尼组21例患者鼻咽部综合评分为理想评分(P=0.007)。在气管层面,相应的值分别为24和16(P=0.056).除了血液动力学参数外,两组之间的次要结局指标没有显着差异。右美托咪定和咪达唑仑-芬太尼组的平均心率,分别,结果如下:在FB开始后10分钟(90.10±14.575,104.35±18.48;P=0.001),在FB结束时(98.39±18.70,105.94±17.45;P=0.016),在FB结束后10分钟(89.84±12.02,93.90±13.74;P=0.022)。无患者出现心动过缓。右美托咪定组2例患者(P=0.491)出现低血压。
    结论:低剂量右美托咪定(0.75μg/kg单剂量)似乎比咪达唑仑-芬太尼组合具有更好的综合评分。
    BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine has acceptable clinical utility for inducing sedation during flexible bronchoscopy. Reducing its dose may not only ameliorate its cardiovascular side effects, but also maintain its clinical usefulness.
    METHODS: Patients between 18 and 65 years were randomized to either dexmedetomidine (0.75 µg/kg) or the midazolam-fentanyl group (0.035 mg/kg midazolam and 25 mcg fentanyl). The primary outcome measure was the composite score. Other parameters noted were: oxygen saturation, hemodynamic variables, Modified Ramsay Sedation Score, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain intensity and distress, Visual Analog Scale score for cough, rescue medication doses, ease of doing bronchoscopy, and patient response 24 hours after bronchoscopy.
    RESULTS: In each arm, 31 patients were enrolled. The composite score at the nasopharynx was in the ideal category in 26 patients in dexmedetomidine and 21 in the midazolam-fentanyl group (P=0.007). At the tracheal level, the corresponding values were 24 and 16 (P=0.056). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the secondary outcome measures except hemodynamic parameters. The mean heart rate in the dexmedetomidine and midazolam-fentanyl groups, respectively, was as follows: at 10 minutes after start of FB (90.10±14.575, 104.35±18.48; P=0.001), at the end of FB (98.39±18.70, 105.94±17.45; P=0.016), and at 10 minutes after end of FB (89.84±12.02, 93.90±13.74; P=0.022). No patient developed bradycardia. Two patients (P=0.491) in the dexmedetomidine group developed hypotension.
    CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose dexmedetomidine (0.75 μg/kg single dose) appears to lead to a better composite score compared with the midazolam-fentanyl combination.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    这项研究的目的是测试不同麻醉剂在小于7天龄的接受去势的仔猪中的鼻内给药是否适合提供优质的镇静作用以及短的诱导和恢复时间以及最小的压力。单独使用高(5mg/kg)的阿帕龙,对120只健康仔猪肌内(i.m.)或鼻内(i.n.)施用中等(3mg/kg)和低剂量(2mg/kg)以及与阿法沙酮或咪达唑仑的两种组合。与肌肉注射相比,鼻内应用显示较长的诱导时间,更短的恢复时间和更高的防守和发声得分。总之,鼻内方案不符合所有组的要求,因此不建议使用。无法保证快速的诱导期和良好的镇静质量。
    The aim of this study was to test the intranasal administration of different anaesthetics in piglets less than seven days of age undergoing castration for their suitability for providing good-quality sedation and short induction and recovery time with minimal stress. Azaperone alone at a high (5 mg/kg), medium (3 mg/kg) and low dosage (2 mg/kg) and in two combinations with either alfaxalone or midazolam were applied intramuscularly (i.m.) or intranasally (i.n.) to 120 healthy piglets. Compared to intramuscular application, intranasal application showed longer induction times, shorter recovery times and higher scores for defence and vocalisation. In conclusion, the intranasal protocols did not meet the requirements in all groups and their use can therefore not be recommended. A rapid induction phase and good quality of sedation could not be guaranteed.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号