新生儿镇静水合氯醛3种不同给药方法的研究  

A study on three different methods for neonatal sedation

作　　者：佘雅娥[1] 顾月萍[1] 滕懿群[1] 何梦藻[1] 

机构地区：[1]嘉兴市第二医院儿科25病区,浙江嘉兴314000

出　　处：《中华全科医学》2016年第10期1683-1685,共3页Chinese Journal of General Practice

基　　金：浙江省科技厅社会发展项目(2013C33218)

摘　　要：目的探讨新生儿头颅CT、脑干听觉诱发电位等需入睡的检查前水合氯醛镇静的最佳方法。方法将需要检查前水合氯醛镇静的新生儿398例,随机分为口服给药98例,保留灌肠(后简称灌肠)给药150例,经口管饲(后简称口饲)给药150例。3组出生体重、日龄、病种比较差异无统计学意义。观察3组给药操作顺利情况,对各组给药顺利的新生儿进一步观察镇静效果及24 h不良反应发生情况。结果 3种不同的给药方法给药操作顺利情况差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),其中口饲组与灌肠组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.012 5),口饲组与口服组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.012 5),而灌肠组与口服组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.012 5);3组给药方法镇静效果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);给药后24 h内不良反应中只有腹泻的不良反应发生差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),其中灌肠组与口饲组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.012 5),灌肠组与口服组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.012 5),而口饲组与口服组差异无统计学意义(P>0.012 5)。结论新生儿检查前水合氯醛镇静,口饲给药方法优于口服及灌肠,口饲操作最顺利,患儿痛苦少,不良反应发生少,也减少护士工作量。Objective To explore the best method for chloral hydrate sedation for cases like cranial computer tomography （CT） and brainstem auditory evoked potential. Methods The 398 newborns who needed chloral hydrate sedation were randomly divided into three groups according to three different dosing methods, namely mouth feeding for 98 infants, rectal administration for 150 cases, and tube feeding for the rest 150 neonates. There were no significant differences between weights at birth, ages in days or kinds of diseases for the infants in the three groups. To observe the smoothness of operations for the three groups, then monitor the sedative effects and occurance of adverse reactions within 24 hours for those infants who successfully took medicine in. Results The difference between the degree of ease of the three methods was statistically significant（ P 〈 0.05 ）. When comparing the smoothness of operations for the groups one by one, there was significant difference between tube feeding group and rectal administration group （ P 〈 0. 012 5 ）, and there was significant difference between tube feeding group and mouth feeding group（P 〈 0. 012 5 ）. However, there was no significant differ- ence between the degree of ease between rectal administration group and mouth feeding group（P 〉 0.012 5）. The sedative effects of the three groups showed no significant difference （P 〉 0.05）. Within 24 hours, the only significant difference in adverse reactions had been the possibility of getting diarrhea （P 〈 0.05 ）. Comparing the possibility of getting diarrhea for groups one by one, there was significant difference between rectal administration group and tube feeding group （P 〈 0.012 5）. The difference was also significant between rectal administration group and mouth feeding group （P 〈 0. 012 5）. There was no significant difference in the possibility of getting diarrhea between tube feeding group and mouth feeding group（P 〉 0.012 5）. Conclusion As for neonatal sedation, tube feedi

关 键 词：新生儿 水合氯醛 口服 经口管饲 保留灌肠 

分 类 号：R614[医药卫生—麻醉学] R722.1[医药卫生—外科学]