论文部分内容阅读
目的评估在ICU内危急重症患者的镇痛镇静治疗中运用咪达唑仑+吗啡的效果及其有关情况。方法方便选择2015年5月—2016年5月因患有危急重症而进入该院ICU接受诊疗的73例患者,随机将其划分作对照、实验两组,对照组36例予以咪达唑仑+曲马多实施镇痛镇静性治疗,实验组37例予以咪达唑仑+吗啡实施镇痛镇静性治疗,经探究两种用药法的运用情况,比对两组镇静镇痛方面的疗效。结果实验组37例在用药治疗48 h后的VAS、Ramasay评估分是(2.1±0.84)分、(5.2±0.29)分,优越于对照组36例的(3.9±1.28)分、(2.9±0.37)分,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。另外,实验组病例持续通气时间、住院天数是(4.5±1.12)、(6.1±1.43)d,优越于对照组的(7.1±1.15)、(9.8±2.39)d,对比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论在ICU危重症患者的镇痛、镇静治疗当中选用吗啡+咪达唑仑联治方法,既能获得较佳成效,又可减少人工通气及住院天数,值得进一步推荐及运用。
Objective To evaluate the effect of midazolam plus morphine in sedation and sedation in critically ill patients in ICU and its related situation. Methods To facilitate the selection of 73 patients admitted to ICU from May 2015 to May 2016 due to critically ill patients and randomly divided into two groups. 36 patients in the control group were treated with midazolam + Tramadol for the treatment of analgesic sedation, 37 patients in the experimental group were given midazolam + morphine for analgesic sedation therapy, the use of the two methods were investigated, compared the efficacy of sedation and analgesia in both groups. Results The VAS and Ramasay scores of the 37 patients in the experimental group after 48 h treatment were (2.1 ± 0.84) points and (5.2 ± 0.29) points respectively, which were superior to those of the control group (3.9 ± 1.28) and 2.9 ± 0.37 ) Points, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). In addition, the duration of continuous ventilation and length of stay in the experimental group were (4.5 ± 1.12) and (6.1 ± 1.43) days, respectively, which were superior to those in the control group (7.1 ± 1.15 and 9.8 ± 2.39 days, respectively) P <0.05). Conclusions The combination of morphine and midazolam in analgesia and sedation of ICU critically ill patients can not only achieve better results but also reduce artificial ventilation and days of hospitalization, which is worthy of further recommendation and application.