切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华产科急救电子杂志 ›› 2013, Vol. 02 ›› Issue (02) : 136 -140. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3259.2013.02.012

所属专题: 文献

论著

饱胃急诊剖宫产患者行腰硬联合麻醉的危险因素分析
陈郡兴1, 白虹2, 蓝绮云1, 陈裕中1, 靳三庆2,(), 詹鸿1   
  1. 1. 510150 广州医学院第三附属医院麻醉科
    2. 中山大学附属第六医院麻醉科
  • 收稿日期:2013-03-06 出版日期:2013-05-18
  • 通信作者: 靳三庆
  • 基金资助:
    广东省科技计划基金项目(2010B080701077)

The risk factors of combined spinal and epidural anesthesia for pregnant women with full stomach in emergency cesarean section

Jun-xing CHEN1, Hong BAI2, Qi-yun LAN1, Yu-zhong CHEN1, San-qing JIN2,(), Hong ZHAN1   

  1. 1. Department of Anethesiology, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 510150, China
  • Received:2013-03-06 Published:2013-05-18
  • Corresponding author: San-qing JIN
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: JIN San-qing, Email:
引用本文:

陈郡兴, 白虹, 蓝绮云, 陈裕中, 靳三庆, 詹鸿. 饱胃急诊剖宫产患者行腰硬联合麻醉的危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华产科急救电子杂志, 2013, 02(02): 136-140.

Jun-xing CHEN, Hong BAI, Qi-yun LAN, Yu-zhong CHEN, San-qing JIN, Hong ZHAN. The risk factors of combined spinal and epidural anesthesia for pregnant women with full stomach in emergency cesarean section[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Obstetric Emergency(Electronic Edition), 2013, 02(02): 136-140.

目的

分析饱胃患者急诊剖宫产行腰硬联合麻醉(CSEA)的危险因素。

方法

选择2010年1月至2012年1月在广州医学院第三附属医院在CSEA下行ASA Ⅰ~Ⅱ级剖宫产手术的220例患者病例进行研究,其中饱胃急诊剖宫产136例为饱胃组,择期剖宫产84例为对照组。两组患者均采用CSEA。对饱胃组患者术中恶心、呕吐的相关因素进行偏相关分析,然后剔除两组术中使用卡前列素氨丁三醇注射液的病例后,再对术中不良事件和新生儿出生情况参数进行比较。

结果

饱胃组患者中,与恶心存在偏相关关系的因素是术中使用卡前列素氨丁三醇注射液(r=0.440)和术中发生低血压(r=0.274);与呕吐存在偏相关关系的因素是术中使用卡前列素氨丁三醇注射液(r=0.646)。饱胃组与对照组在剔除使用卡前列素氨丁三醇注射液的病例后比较,对照组术中低血压的发生率高于饱胃组( χ2=20.455,P<0.05),两组其余指标的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

术中使用卡前列素氨丁三醇注射液与低血压是饱胃患者在CSEA下行急诊剖宫产麻醉的危险因素。

Objective

To analyze the risk factors of combined spinal and epidural anesthesia (CSEA) for pregnant women with full stomach in emergency cesarean section.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted in 220 pregnant women undergoing ASAⅠ-Ⅱcesarean section with CSEA, including 136 cases under emergent cesarean section with full stomach (full stomach group) and 84 cases under elective cesarean section (control group), who were admitted to the Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medial University from January 2010 to January 2012. Partial correlation analysis was used for risk factors of pregnancy women with full stomach, such as nausea, vomiting, and so on. After excluded the cases of using hemabate, adverse effects in cesarean section and the outcomes of the newborns were compared in the two groups.

Results

In full stomach group, nausea partial correlated with using hemabate (r=0.440) and hypotensive during operation(r=0.274). And vomiting partial correlated with using hemabate(r=0.646). Compared in full stomach group and control group, the incidence rate of intraoperative hypotension was higher in control group than in full stomach group, excluded the cases of using hemabate, ( χ2=20.455, P<0.05). But there were no significantly difference in the comparison of the other risk factors(P>0.05).

Conclusion

Using hemabate during cesarean section and hypotension were the main risk factors of pregnant women with full stomach, who underwent emergent cesarean section with CSEA.

表1 136例饱胃患者术中发生恶心、呕吐的相关分析
表2 136例饱胃患者术中发生恶心、呕吐的偏相关分析
表3 两组患者一般情况的比较(±s)
表4 两组患者术中不良事件的比较
表5 两组患者新生儿出生时情况的比较(±s)
[1]
陈郡兴,白虹,庞婷,等. 饱胃急诊剖宫产麻醉选择现状的初步调查. 实用医学杂志,2012, 28(21):3648-3651.
[2]
李泽均. 饱胃产妇急诊剖宫产术的麻醉处理. 华夏医学,2004, 17(6):947-948.
[3]
刁伟光,鄂爽,李莉,等. 罗哌卡因和左旋布比卡因腰-腰硬联合麻醉用于急诊剖宫产手术的临床观察. 临床麻醉学杂志,2009, 25(7):637-638.
[4]
Joy L, James F, Richard T, et al. Practice Guidelines for Obstetric Anesthesia: An Updated Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Obstetric Anesthesia. Anesthesiology, 2007, 106(4): 843-863.
[5]
Merchant R, Bosenberg C, Brown K, et al. Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia: Revised edition 2011. Can J Anaesth, 2011, 58(1):74-107.
[6]
孙忠实,史亦丽. 国家新药制剂总览. 北京:化工工艺出版社,2002: 371.
[7]
Balki M, Kasodekar S, Dhumne S, et al. Prophylactic granisetron does not prevent postdelivery nausea and vomiting during elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. Anesth Analg, 2007, 104(3):679-683.
[8]
Tamilselvan P, Fernando R, Bray J, et al. The effects of crystalloid and colloid preload on cardiac output in the parturient undergoing planned cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia: a randomized trial. Anesth Analg, 2009, 109(6):1916-1921.
[9]
Teoh WH, Sia AT. Colloid preload versus coload for spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery: the effects on maternal cardiac output. Anesth Analg, 2009, 108(5):1592-1598.
[10]
Carvalho B, Mercier FJ, Riley ET, et al. Hetastarch co-loading is as effective as pre-loading for the prevention of hypotension following spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Int J Obstet Anesth, 2009, 18(2):150-155.
[11]
Siddik-Sayyid SM, Nasr VG, Taha SK, et al. A randomized trial comparing colloid preload to coload during spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg, 2009, 109(4):1219-1224.
[12]
Muzlifah KB, Choy YC. Comparison between preloading with 10 ml/kg and 20 ml/kg of Ringer′s lactate in preventing hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. Med J Malaysia, 2009, 64(2):114-117.
[13]
Mercier FJ, Bonnet MP, De la Dorie A, et al. Spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section: fluid loading, vasopressors and hypotension. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim, 2007, 26(7-8):688-693.
[14]
Loubert C. Fluid and vasopressor management for cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia: continuing professional development. Can J Anaesth, 2012, 59(6):604-619.
[15]
McDonald S, Fernando R, Ashpole K, et al. Maternal cardiac output changes after crystalloid or colloid coload following spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Anesth Analg, 2011, 113(4):803-810.
[16]
Gunusen I, Karaman S, Ertugrul V, et al. Effects of fluid preload (crystalloid or colloid) compared with crystalloid co-load plus ephedrine infusion on hypotension and neonatal outcome during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean delivery. Anaesth Intensive Care, 2010, 38(4):647-653.
[17]
Jaffe RA, Samuels SI. 斯坦福临床麻醉全书. 陈宁,韩建阁,译. 3版. 天津:天津科技翻译出版公司,2005:770.
[1] 明昊, 肖迎聪, 巨艳, 宋宏萍. 乳腺癌风险预测模型的研究现状[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 287-291.
[2] 庄燕, 戴林峰, 张海东, 陈秋华, 聂清芳. 脓毒症患者早期生存影响因素及Cox 风险预测模型构建[J/OL]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(05): 372-378.
[3] 黄鸿初, 黄美容, 温丽红. 血液系统恶性肿瘤患者化疗后粒细胞缺乏感染的危险因素和风险预测模型[J/OL]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 285-292.
[4] 罗文斌, 韩玮. 胰腺癌患者首次化疗后中重度骨髓抑制的相关危险因素分析及预测模型构建[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 357-362.
[5] 贺斌, 马晋峰. 胃癌脾门淋巴结转移危险因素[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 694-699.
[6] 林凯, 潘勇, 赵高平, 杨春. 造口还纳术后切口疝的危险因素分析与预防策略[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 634-638.
[7] 杨闯, 马雪. 腹壁疝术后感染的危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 693-696.
[8] 周艳, 李盈, 周小兵, 程发辉, 何恒正. 不同类型补片联合Nissen 胃底折叠术修补食管裂孔疝的疗效及复发潜在危险因素[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 528-533.
[9] 张伟伟, 陈启, 翁和语, 黄亮. 随机森林模型预测T1 期结直肠癌淋巴结转移的初步研究[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(05): 389-393.
[10] 司楠, 孙洪涛. 创伤性脑损伤后肾功能障碍危险因素的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(05): 300-305.
[11] 柏明涛, 黄宝辰, 牛纪杰, 张玉海, 穆振欣. 原发性脑干出血30天死亡的危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(04): 213-217.
[12] 颜世锐, 熊辉. 感染性心内膜炎合并急性肾损伤患者的危险因素探索及死亡风险预测[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(07): 618-624.
[13] 李文哲, 王毅, 崔建, 郑启航, 王靖彦, 于湘友. 新疆维吾尔自治区重症患者急性肾功能异常的危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 269-276.
[14] 刘志超, 胡风云, 温春丽. 山西省脑卒中危险因素与地域的相关性分析[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 424-433.
[15] 曹亚丽, 高雨萌, 张英谦, 李博, 杜军保, 金红芳. 儿童坐位不耐受的临床进展[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 510-515.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?