台灣地區嚴重頭部外傷治療鎮定劑使用之回顧及propofol 跨院前瞻性、隨機對照臨床試驗

林天仁(Tien-Jen Lin)

指導教授 ： 邱文達

臺北醫學大學/公共衛生暨營養學院/傷害防治學研究所/碩士(2005年)

摘要

摘要 根據統計頭部外傷是事故傷害致死及失能的最主要原因本研究目的為建立頭部外傷病患使用propofol之處理模式，期望藉由本研究提供國內以propofol代替「嚴重頭部外傷處理準則」中建議之pentobarbital為使用之鎮靜劑。頭部受創致昏迷指數（Glasgow coma scale）3-12分之患者、須使用呼吸器及植入顱內壓監測器者為本研究的研究樣本。研究樣本所使用的鎮靜劑的類別為Propofol 44 例 及Midiazolam 14例。使用鎮靜劑須利用升壓劑預防腦部缺血的腦部外傷重症病患約為27.27%,但未使用鎮定劑者則有54.10%的比例須使用升壓劑(P<0.001) 。使用鎮靜劑者在傷後加護照護時前五日的平均顱內壓、平均腦灌流壓皆比未使用鎮靜劑者佳。加護病房的前五日顱內壓的記錄上，使用鎮靜劑的患者其在各別天數的顱內壓的平均值皆比未使用者理想（傷後前三日ICP小於20mmHg）。在腦灌流壓方面，使用鎮靜劑患者傷後前五日之平均腦灌流壓均可維持在70mmHg以上，反觀未使用者其平均腦灌流壓僅可維持在40mmHg左右。GCS 起始值在3-4 及5-6分的患者使用鎮靜劑時其腦灌流壓的傷後前五日平均值皆比未使用者理想(CPP>70mmHg)。鎮靜劑使用在嚴重腦傷患者可因為顱內壓及腦自律循環得到較好的控制而使腦灌流壓能維持在較高的數值。在各種受傷後的基準昏迷指數(Baseline GCS 3-4分,5-6分及7分以上)其日後死亡率的數據顯示，使用鎮靜劑的患者其死亡率在基準昏迷指數3-4分及5-6分皆比未使用者佳。

關鍵字

腦外傷 ； 重症加護 ； 鎮靜劑 ； 顱內壓 ； 腦灌流壓

並列摘要

Abstract We have compared the effects of an intravenous infusion of sedation with those without sedation on Intracranial pressure (ICP) and cerebral perfusion potential (CPP) following severe head injury. 58 patients were sedated with either a continuous infusion of propofol (mean rate 232 mg/h, range 150-400 mg/h) or midazolam (mean rate 2.8 mg/h, range 0-5 mg/h). Both groups were well matched for sex, age and level of coma (Glasgow coma scale) prior to sedation. Continuous data collection of ICP , mean arterial blood pressure (MABP), and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) began at 12 hours post injury and continued for a mean period of 120 hours. Propofol have a significant effect on the measured parameters. Propofol led to a fall in ICP and a surge in CPP from initial days post-injury. However, there was no effect on EtCO2 or PaCO2. Outcome was not similia in the 2 groups. Propofol exerts more effect on the lowering patients’ mortality rate after traumatic Brain injury.

參考文獻

4. Kelly, D.F., Goodale, D.B., Williams, J., Herr, D.L., Chappell, E.T., Rosner, M.J., Jacobson, J., Levy, M.L., Croce, M.A., Maniker, A.H., Fulda, G.J., Lovett, J.V., Mohan, O. and Narayan, R.K. (1999) Propofol in the treatment of moderate and severe head injury: a randomized, prospective double-blinded pilot trial. Journal of Neurosurgery. 90(6): 1042-1052.

2. Clark, W.C., Muhlbauer, M.S., Lowrey, R., Hartman, M., Ray, M.W. and Watridge, C.B. (1989) Complications of intracranial pressure monitoring in trauma patients. Neurosurgery. 25(1): 20-24.

3. Herregods L, Verbeke J, Rolly G, et al. Effect of propofol on elevated intracranial pressure. Preliminary results. Anaethesia. 1988; 43(supp):107-109

5. Leisure GS, O’Flaherty J, Green L, et al. Propofol and postoperative pancreatitis. Anethesiology. 1996; 84:224-227

6. Marshall, L.F., Smith, R.W. and Shapiro, H.M. (1979) The outcome with aggressive treatment in severe head injuries. Part I: the significance of intracranial pressure monitoring. Journal of Neurosurgery. 50(1): 20-25.