ObjectiveTo explore sedation effect of dexmedetomidine alone and its effects on respiration and circulation of complications in transtracheal endoscopic interventional therapy. MethodsFrom April 2012 to May 2014, 60 adult patients who plan to undergo transtracheal endoscopic interventional therapy were recruited in the study. The patients were divided into a midazolam combined with fenanyl citrate intravenous injection group (MF group), and a dexmedetomidine target controlled infusion group (Y group) using the method of random number table, with 30 cases in each group. All patients were given 2% lidocaine 15 mL by ultrasonic atomizing inhalation for local surface anaesthesia preoperatively, and then the patients in MF group received midazolam and fentanyl citrate by slow intravenous injection, the patients in Y group received dexmedetomidine 0.5 g intravenous injection and persistant infusion of dexmedetomidinein dosage of 0.2 μg/h. The basic Ramsay sedation score (T0) was recorded, then the Ramsay sedation scoring was conducted when the bronchoscope entering into the pharyngeal cavity (T1), into the glottis (T2), and into the bronchial (T3), respectively. ResultsThere were no significant differences in restlessness, hypotension, hypertension, or tachycardia incidence rate between two groups (P>0.05). The differences in Ramsay score between two groups was not significant at T0 or T1 time point (P>0.05), but was significant at T2 and T3 time point (P<0.05). Compared with MF group, the incidence of respiratory depression and hypoxemia was significantly lower, and the recovery time was significantly shorter in Y group (P<0.05). All patients in Y group woke up immediately by simple call. While in MF group, 23 patients needed intravenous flumazenil to promote awakening. ConclusionDexmedetomidine alone can provide effective sedation in transtracheal endoscopic interventional therapy with good effect, high safety, and more convenient awakening.
Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of tiotropium plus budesonide/formoterol compared with tiotropium in Chinese patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods PubMed (from 1980 to March, 2015), Wiley Online Library (from 1990 to March, 2015), Elsevier (from 1990 to March, 2015), CNKI(from 1990 to March, 2015), VIP(from 1990 to March, 2015) and WanFang Data(from 1990 to March, 2015) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of tiotropium plus budesonide/formoterol compared with tiotropium in treating Chinese patients with COPD from the establishment of the database to March 2015. The quality of included studies was assessed according to Cochrane Methods 5.1 for Systematic Review, and Meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.3 software. Results Atotal of 9 studies involving 503 patients were included. Compared with the tiotropium therapy group, tiotropium plus budesonide/formoterol in treating Chinese patients with COPD can more significantly improve FEV1 (MD=0.10, 95%CI 0.05 to 0.15, P<0.000 01), FEV1%pred (MD=4.27, 95%CI 2.44 to 6.09, P<0.000 01), FEV1/FVC (MD=3.48, 95%CI 3.21 to 3.74, P<0.000 01), mMRC (MD=-0.27, 95%CI -0.38 to -0.17, P<0.000 01), CAT (MD=-0.91, 95%CI -1.74 to -0.08, P=0.03), 6MWT (MD=27.64, 95%CI 11.76 to 37.53, P<0.000 01) and the frequency of repeated exacerbations (OR=0.25, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.76, P=0.01) while no significant difference was found between two groups in SGRQ (MD=-5.11, 95%CI -11.57 to 1.36, P=0.12). There was no significant differences in adverse reaction rates (OR=1.33, 95%CI 0.65 to 2.73, P=0.44) between the tiotropium plus budesonide/formoterol group and the control group. Conclusions Tiotropium plus budesonide/formoterol is effective in treating Chinese patients with COPD. It can effectively improve treatment efficiency and does not increase the incidence of adverse drug reactions. However, due to the limitation of both quantity and quality of included studies, this conclusion should be further confirmed by more high quality and large sample studies.