氧化亚氮与氧气混合吸入技术在中重度烧伤患儿清创换药镇痛镇静中的应用效果

范涛涛; 韩梅; 梁艳; 曹国辉; 宋国栋

doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20220308-00051

氧化亚氮与氧气混合吸入技术在中重度烧伤患儿清创换药镇痛镇静中的应用效果

doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20220308-00051

范涛涛^{1, 2},
韩梅²,
梁艳^{1, 2},
曹国辉²,
宋国栋^{1, 2, ,}

1.
山东大学齐鲁医学院，济南　　250012
2.
山东第一医科大学附属中心医院（济南市中心医院）烧伤整复外科，济南　　250013

基金项目:

济南市烧创伤与慢性创面临床医学研究中心 201912010

济南市医疗卫生科技创新计划 201907080

详细信息

通讯作者:
宋国栋，Email：sgd.zxyy@163.com

计量
- 文章访问数: 155
- HTML全文浏览量: 63
- PDF下载量: 23
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2022-03-08

Application effects of nitrous oxide and oxygen mixed inhalation technology on analgesia and sedation during debridement and dressing change in children with moderate or severe burns

Fan Taotao^{1, 2},
Han Mei²,
Liang Yan^{1, 2},
Cao Guohui²,
Song Guodong^{1, 2
, ,}

1.
Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China
2.
Department of Burns and Plastic Surgery, Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University (Jinan Central Hospital), Jinan 250013, China

Funds:

Jinan Clinical Medical Research Center for Burn/Trauma and Chronic Wounds 201912010

Jinan Science and Technology Innovation Project on Medicine and Health 201907080

More Information

Corresponding author: Song Guodong, Email: sgd.zxyy@163.com

摘要

摘要: 目的探讨氧化亚氮与氧气混合吸入技术在中重度烧伤患儿清创换药镇痛镇静中的应用效果。方法采用回顾性非随机同期对照研究方法。2019年12月—2021年11月，山东第一医科大学附属中心医院收治符合入选标准的1~3岁中重度烧伤患儿140例。将在伤后3~14 d于清创换药过程中采用以护士为中心的疼痛管理模式、使用氧化亚氮与氧气混合吸入技术行镇痛镇静的42例患儿纳入氧化亚氮组（选择首次使用前述技术的换药过程进行后续研究），其中男23例、女19例；将从换药过程中未进行镇痛镇静处理的98例患儿中分层随机抽样后得到的42例患儿纳入非氧化亚氮组（任选1次换药过程进行后续研究），其中男24例、女18例。分别采用面部表情、腿部动作、活动度、哭闹和可安慰性量表和Ramsay镇静量表评估患儿换药前30 min（以下简称换药前）、清创后即刻、换药结束后30 min（以下简称换药后）的疼痛强度和镇静程度。换药后，采用自制满意度量表评估换药医师及患儿监护人对患儿换药过程中镇痛效果的满意度。分别记录换药时长和深Ⅱ度创面愈合时间。记录换药前、中、后患儿心率、经皮动脉血氧饱和度（SpO ₂）和换药过程中恶心、呕吐等不良事件发生情况。对数据行Mann-Whitney U检验、 χ ²检验、重复测量方差分析、独立样本 t检验及Bonferroni校正。结果 2组患儿换药前、后疼痛强度评分及镇静程度评分均无明显差异（ P>0.05）。氧化亚氮组患儿清创后即刻疼痛强度评分为（2.5±0.7）分，明显低于非氧化亚氮组的（7.6±1.0）分（ t=-26.69， P<0.05）；氧化亚氮组患儿清创后即刻镇静程度评分为（1.83±0.38）分，明显高于非氧化亚氮组的（1.21±0.42）分（ t=7.15， P<0.05）。换药后，氧化亚氮组换药医师和患儿监护人对患儿换药过程中的镇痛效果满意度评分均明显高于非氧化亚氮组（ t值分别为10.53、2.24， P<0.05）。氧化亚氮组患儿换药时长明显短于非氧化亚氮组（ t=-5.33， P<0.05），2组患儿深Ⅱ度创面愈合时间无明显差异（ P>0.05）。氧化亚氮组患儿换药中心率明显低于非氧化亚氮组（ t=-12.40， P<0.05），SpO ₂明显高于非氧化亚氮组（ t=5.98， P<0.05）。换药过程中，氧化亚氮组2例患儿出现恶心，1例患儿出现欣快表现；非氧化亚氮组所有患儿心率持续高于正常范围。结论在中重度烧伤患儿清创换药过程中，采用以护士为中心的疼痛管理模式，规范使用氧化亚氮与氧气混合吸入技术能安全、有效地控制疼痛和镇静。
- 烧伤 /
- 儿童 /
- 疼痛 /
- 氧化亚氮 /
- 镇痛 /
- 镇静 /
- 换药
Abstract: Objective To investigate the application effects of nitrous oxide and oxygen mixed inhalation technology on analgesia and sedation during debridement and dressing change in children with moderate or severe burns. Methods A retrospective non-randomized contemporary controlled study was conducted. From December 2019 to November 2021, 140 burn children with moderate or severe burns, aged 1 to 3 years, who met the inclusion criteria were admitted to Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University. During debridement and dressing change 3 to 14 days after injury, 42 children, including 23 males and 19 females, who received nurse-centered pain management mode and analgesia and sedation with nitrous oxide and oxygen mixed inhalation technology were included in nitrous oxide group (the dressing change process using the above-mentioned technology for the first time was selected for the follow-up study). Another 42 children, including 24 males and 18 females, were included in non-nitrous oxide group from 98 children who did not apply analgesia or sedation treatment during dressing change with stratified random sampling (one dressing change process was randomly selected for the follow-up study). The face, legs, activity, cry, and consolability scale and Ramsay sedation scale were used to evaluate the pain intensity and degree of sedation, respectively, at 30 minutes before dressing change (hereinafter referred to as before dressing change), immediately after debridement, and at 30 minutes after finishing dressing change (hereinafter referred to as after dressing change). After dressing change, the self-made satisfaction scale was used to evaluate the satisfaction degree of dressing change surgeons and guardians of children for analgesic effects during dressing change. The duration of dressing change and the healing time of deep partial-thickness burn wounds were recorded. The heart rate and percutaneous arterial oxygen saturation (SpO ₂) before, during, and after dressing change and the occurrence of adverse events such as nausea and vomiting during dressing change were recorded. Data were statistically analyzed with Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, analysis of variance for repeated measurement, independent sample t test, and Bonferroni correction. Results There were no significant differences in the score of pain intensity and score of sedation degree between children in two groups before and after dressing change ( P>0.05). Immediately after debridement, the score of pain intensity of children in nitrous oxide group was 2.5±0.7, which was significantly lower than 7.6±1.0 in non-nitrous oxide group ( t=-26.69, P<0.05); the score of sedation degree of children in nitrous oxide group was 1.83±0.38, which was significantly higher than 1.21±0.42 in non-nitrous oxide group ( t=7.15, P<0.05). After dressing change, the satisfaction degree scores of dressing change surgeons and guardians of children for analgesic effects during dressing change of children in nitrous oxide group were significantly higher than those in non-nitrous oxide group (with tvalues of 10.53 and 2.24, respectively, P<0.05). The dressing change duration of children in nitrous oxide group was significantly shorter than that in non-nitrous oxide group ( t=-5.33, P<0.05). The healing time of deep partial-thickness burn wounds in children between the two groups had no significant difference ( P>0.05). The heart rate of children in nitrous oxide group was significantly lower than that in non-nitrous oxide group during dressing change ( t=-12.40, P<0.05), while the SpO ₂ was significantly higher than that in non-nitrous oxide group ( t=5.98, P<0.05). During dressing change, 2 children had nausea and 1 child had euphoria in nitrous oxide group, while heart rate of all children in non-nitrous oxide group continued to be higher than the normal range. Conclusions In the process of debridement and dressing change in children with moderate or severe burns, the use of nurse-centered pain management mode and the standardized use of nitrous oxide and oxygen mixed inhalation technology can safely and effectively control pain and sedation.
- Burns /
- Child /
- Pain /
- Nitrous oxide /
- Analgesia /
- Sedation /
- Dressing change
范涛涛：酝酿和设计研究、采集数据、分析解释数据、起草文章、统计分析；韩梅：酝酿和设计研究，采集数据，分析解释数据，对文章内容作批评性审阅，行政、技术或材料支持；梁艳、曹国辉：采集数据，分析解释数据，对文章内容作批评性审阅，统计分析；宋国栋：酝酿和设计研究，分析解释数据，对文章内容作批评性审阅，获取研究经费，行政、技术或材料支持

所有作者均声明不存在利益冲突

HTML全文

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表1 非氧化亚氮组分层随机抽样前后组内及2组间中重度烧伤患儿临床资料比较

组别与时间点	例数	性别（例）		年龄［岁， M（ Q ₁， Q ₃）］	体重［kg， M（ Q ₁， Q ₃）］	烧伤总面积［%TBSA， M（ Q ₁， Q ₃）］	Ⅲ度烧伤面积［%TBSA， M（ Q ₁， Q ₃）］	换药部位（例）			伤后换药时间［d， M（ Q ₁， Q ₃）］	手术例数
组别与时间点	例数	男	女	年龄［岁， M（ Q ₁， Q ₃）］	体重［kg， M（ Q ₁， Q ₃）］	烧伤总面积［%TBSA， M（ Q ₁， Q ₃）］	Ⅲ度烧伤面积［%TBSA， M（ Q ₁， Q ₃）］	躯干	上肢	下肢	伤后换药时间［d， M（ Q ₁， Q ₃）］	手术例数
非氧化亚氮组
抽样前	98	59	39	1（1，2）	12.0（10.5，14.0）	10.0（8.0，15.0）	0（0，2）	52	16	30	6（3，10）	19
抽样后	42	24	18	1（1，2）	11.5（10.0，12.6）	12.0（9.5，18.0）	1（0，2）	26	4	12	6（4，9）	13
氧化亚氮组	42	23	19	1（1，2）	12.0（10.9，13.1）	12.0（8.8，18.0）	1（0，2）	21	7	14	6（4，9）	16
统计量值1		χ ²=0.11		Z=-0.75	Z=-0.96	Z=-1.90	Z=-1.28	χ ²=1.41			Z=-0.41	χ ²=2.23
P ₁值		0.851		0.456	0.338	0.058	0.202	0.486			0.679	0.187
统计量值2		χ ²=0.36		Z=-0.97	Z=-0.60	Z=-1.98	Z=-1.28	χ ²=0.12			Z=-0.27	χ ²=5.49
P ₂值		0.549		0.333	0.551	0.047	0.199	0.940			0.786	0.019
统计量值3		χ ²=0.05		Z=-0.20	Z=-0.38	Z=-0.14	Z=-0.33	χ ²=0.84			Z=-0.12	χ ²=0.47
P ₃值		0.826		0.841	0.706	0.885	0.742	0.659			0.903	0.491
注：氧化亚氮组采用氧化亚氮与氧气混合吸入技术镇痛镇静，非氧化亚氮组不进行镇痛镇静处理；统计量值1、 P ₁值为非氧化亚氮组抽样前与抽样后比较所得，统计量值2、 P ₂值，统计量值3、 P ₃值分别为非氧化亚氮组抽样前、后与氧化亚氮组比较所得；TBSA为体表总面积；手术例数指换药时已行手术治疗的例数

下载: 导出CSV

表2 分层随机抽样后2组中重度烧伤患儿各时间点疼痛强度评分和镇静程度评分比较（分， x ¯ ± s ）

组别	例数	疼痛强度评分			镇静程度评分
组别	例数	换药前	清创后即刻	换药后	换药前	清创后即刻	换药后
氧化亚氮组	42	1.9±0.4	2.5±0.7	1.8±0.7	1.93±0.26	1.83±0.38	2.12±0.59
非氧化亚氮组	42	1.9±1.0	7.6±1.0	1.9±1.1	1.90±0.48	1.21±0.42	2.14±0.75
t值		0.15	-26.69	-0.36	0.28	7.15	-0.16
P值		0.886	<0.001	0.719	0.780	<0.001	0.872
注：氧化亚氮组采用氧化亚氮与氧气混合吸入技术镇痛镇静，非氧化亚氮组不进行镇痛镇静处理；换药前指换药开始前30 min，换药后指换药结束后30 min；疼痛强度评分处理因素主效应， F=12.56， P<0.001；时间因素主效应， F=28.80， P<0.001；两者交互作用， F=9.74， P<0.001；镇静程度评分处理因素主效应， F=284.23， P<0.001；时间因素主效应， F=361.89， P<0.001；两者交互作用， F=239.15， P<0.001

下载: 导出CSV

表3 换药结束后30 min分层随机抽样后2组换药医师和患儿监护人对中重度烧伤患儿换药过程中的镇痛效果满意度评分比较（分， x ¯ ± s ）

组别	例数	换药医师	患儿监护人
氧化亚氮组	42	8.5±0.8	8.4±0.9
非氧化亚氮组	42	6.3±1.1	7.9±1.0
t值		10.53	2.24
P值		<0.001	0.028
注：氧化亚氮组采用氧化亚氮与氧气混合吸入技术镇痛镇静，非氧化亚氮组不进行镇痛镇静处理

下载: 导出CSV

表4 分层随机抽样后2组中重度烧伤患儿清创换药各时间点心率及SpO ₂比较（ x ¯ ± s ）

组别	例数	心率（次/min）			SpO ₂
组别	例数	换药前	换药中	换药后	换药前	换药中	换药后
氧化亚氮组	42	115±8	120±15	112±8	0.991±0.005	0.990±0.008	0.990±0.005
非氧化亚氮组	42	114±8	151±7	111±7	0.991±0.005	0.973±0.017	0.989±0.005
t值		0.75	-12.40	0.76	-0.48	5.98	0.42
P值		0.455	<0.001	0.449	0.635	<0.001	0.674
注：氧化亚氮组采用氧化亚氮与氧气混合吸入技术镇痛镇静，非氧化亚氮组不进行镇痛镇静处理；SpO ₂为经皮动脉血氧饱和度；换药前指换药开始前30 min，换药中指贴附内敷料结束后、包扎外敷料开始前，换药后指换药结束后30 min；心率处理因素主效应， F=26.52， P<0.001；时间因素主效应， F=586.78， P<0.001；两者交互作用， F=293.05， P<0.001；SpO ₂处理因素主效应， F=23.73， P<0.001；时间因素主效应， F=32.38， P<0.001；两者交互作用， F=31.16， P<0.001

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(37)

[1]	TegtmeyerLC, HerrnstadtGR, MaierSL, et al. Retrospective analysis on thermal injuries in children-demographic, etiological and clinical data of German and Austrian pediatric hospitals 2006-2015-approaching the new German burn registry[J]. Burns, 2018, 44(1):150-157. DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2017.05.013.
[2]	何珊,左泽兰.1 946例住院烧伤患儿流行病学调查[J].中华烧伤杂志,2018,34(10):696-700.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2018.10.009.
[3]	张成,彭源,罗小强,等.3 067例住院烧伤患儿流行病学调查及其感染的病原学特征分析[J].中华烧伤杂志,2021,37(6):538-545.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20210201-00044.
[4]	《中华烧伤杂志》编辑委员会.成人烧伤疼痛管理指南(2013版)[J].中华烧伤杂志,2013,29(3):225-231.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2013.03.002.
[5]	杨晓瑞,钟坤根,胡清刚,等.手术室外床旁烧伤患者清创换药的疼痛治疗研究进展[J].医学综述,2019,25(10):2039-2043,2048.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-2084.2019.10.032.
[6]	ISBI Practice Guidelines Committee, SubcommitteeAdvisory, SubcommitteeSteering. ISBI practice guidelines for burn care, part 2[J]. Burns, 2018, 44(7):1617-1706. DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2018.09.012.
[7]	FaginA, PalmieriTL. Considerations for pediatric burn sedation and analgesia[J/OL]. Burns Trauma, 2017, 5(1):28[2022-03-08]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33709001/.DOI: 10.1186/s41038-017-0094-8.
[8]	VossJK, LozenskiJ, HansenJK, et al. Sedation and analgesia for adult outpatient burn dressing change: a survey of American Burn Association Centers[J]. J Burn Care Res, 2020, 41(2):322-327. DOI: 10.1093/jbcr/irz164.
[9]	HansenJK, VossJ, GanatraH, et al. Sedation and analgesia during pediatric burn dressing change: a survey of American Burn Association Centers[J]. J Burn Care Res, 2019, 40(3):287-293. DOI: 10.1093/jbcr/irz023.
[10]	RetrouveyH, ShahrokhiS. Pain and the thermally injured patient-a review of current therapies[J]. J Burn Care Res, 2015, 36(2):315-323. DOI: 10.1097/BCR.0000000000000073.
[11]	MyersR, LozenskiJ, WyattM, et al. Sedation and analgesia for dressing change: a survey of American Burn Association Burn Centers[J]. J Burn Care Res, 2017, 38(1): e48-e54. DOI: 10.1097/BCR.0000000000000423.
[12]	姚则名,冷敏,汪虹.烧伤患儿辅助镇痛镇静治疗的研究进展[J].中华烧伤杂志,2020,36(10):979-982.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20190731-00327.
[13]	吴巍巍,路英慧,程丹,等.烧伤患儿的疼痛评估及非药物干预研究进展[J].中华烧伤杂志,2020,36(1):76-80.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2020.01.015.
[14]	海峡两岸医药卫生交流协会烧创伤暨组织修复专委会.氧化亚氮与氧气混合吸入镇静镇痛技术在烧伤外科应用的专家共识(2021版)[J].中华烧伤杂志,2021,37(3):201-206.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20200523-00284.
[15]	OsmanBM, ShapiroFE. Office-based anesthesia: a comprehensive review and 2019 update[J]. Anesthesiol Clin, 2019, 37(2):317-331. DOI: 10.1016/j.anclin.2019.01.004.
[16]	RamsayMA, SavegeTM, SimpsonBR, et al. Controlled sedation with alphaxalone-alphadolone[J]. Br Med J, 1974, 2(5920):656-659. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.2.5920.656.
[17]	中华医学会儿科学分会急救学组,中华医学会急诊医学分会儿科学组,中国医师协会儿童重症医师分会.中国儿童重症监护病房镇痛和镇静治疗专家共识(2018版)[J].中华儿科杂志,2019,57(5):324-330.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0578-1310.2019.05.002.
[18]	MerkelSI, Voepel-LewisT, ShayevitzJR, et al. The FLACC: a behavioral scale for scoring postoperative pain in young children[J]. Pediatr Nurs, 1997, 23(3):293-297.
[19]	Voepel-LewisT, MerkelS, TaitAR, et al. The reliability and validity of the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability observational tool as a measure of pain in children with cognitive impairment[J]. Anesth Analg, 2002, 95(5):1224-1229. DOI: 10.1097/00000539-200211000-00020.
[20]	StoddardFJJr, LuthraR, SorrentinoEA, et al. A randomized controlled trial of sertraline to prevent posttraumatic stress disorder in burned children[J]. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol, 2011, 21(5):469-477. DOI: 10.1089/cap.2010.0133.
[21]	LegrandM, BarraudD, ConstantI, et al. Management of severe thermal burns in the acute phase in adults and children[J]. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med, 2020, 39(2):253-267. DOI: 10.1016/j.accpm.2020.03.006.
[22]	WeinertCR, ChlanL, GrossC. Sedating critically ill patients: factors affecting nurses' delivery of sedative therapy[J]. Am J Crit Care, 2001, 10(3):156-165; quiz 166-167.
[23]	BarrJ, FraserGJ, PuntilloK, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit[J]. Crit Care Med, 2013, 41(1):263-306. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182783b72.
[24]	HinkelbeinJ, LampertiM, AkesonJ, et al. European Society of Anaesthesiology and European Board of Anaesthesiology guidelines for procedural sedation and analgesia in adults[J]. Eur J Anaesthesiol, 2018, 35(1):6-24. DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000683.
[25]	朱峰,夏照帆.成人重症烧伤镇痛镇静管理[J].中华烧伤杂志,2018,34(6):407-411.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2018.06.022.
[26]	McgrathPJ, WalcoGA, TurkDC, et al. Core outcome domains and measures for pediatric acute and chronic/recurrent pain clinical trials: PedIMMPACT recommendations[J]. J Pain, 2008, 9(9):771-783. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2008.04.007.
[27]	ZielińskiJ, Morawska-KochmanM, ZatońskiT. Pain assessment and management in children in the postoperative period: a review of the most commonly used postoperative pain assessment tools, new diagnostic methods and the latest guidelines for postoperative pain therapy in children[J]. Adv Clin Exp Med, 2020, 29(3):365-374. DOI: 10.17219/acem/112600.
[28]	CrellinDJ, HarrisonD, SantamariaN, et al. The psychometric properties of the FLACC scale used to assess procedural pain[J]. J Pain, 2018, 19(8):862-872. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2018.02.013.
[29]	MellonRD, SimoneAF, RappaportBA. Use of anesthetic agents in neonates and young children[J]. Anesth Analg, 2007, 104(3):509-520. DOI: 10.1213/01.ane.0000255729.96438.b0.
[30]	QuachDF, de LeonVC, ConwayCR. Nitrous oxide: an emerging novel treatment for treatment-resistant depression[J]. J Neurol Sci, 2022, 434:120092. DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2021.120092.
[31]	GriggsC, GovermanJ, BittnerEA, et al. Sedation and pain management in burn patients[J]. Clin Plast Surg, 2017, 44(3):535-540. DOI: 10.1016/j.cps.2017.02.026.
[32]	BrownNJ, KimbleRM, GramotnevG, et al. Predictors of re-epithelialization in pediatric burn[J]. Burns, 2014, 40(4):751-758. DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2013.09.027.
[33]	PardesiO, FuzaylovG. Pain management in pediatric burn patients: review of recent literature and future directions[J]. J Burn Care Res, 2017, 38(6):335-347. DOI: 10.1097/BCR.0000000000000470.
[34]	吴新民,薛张纲,马虹,等.右美托咪定临床应用专家共识(2018)[J].临床麻醉学杂志,2018,34(8):820-823.DOI: 10.12089/jca.2018.08.024.
[35]	杨智斌,沈江涌,米克德,等.右美托咪定复合瑞芬太尼在烧伤重症监护病房中清醒非插管患者换药时的应用研究[J].中华烧伤杂志,2018,34(10):707-713.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2018.10.011.
[36]	谢军明,金慧,王媛媛,等.不同剂量右美托咪定滴鼻用于后路腰椎管减压内固定术患者术前镇静效果的比较[J].临床麻醉学杂志,2020,36(1):30-34.DOI: 10.12089/jca.2020.01.007.
[37]	LiA, YuenVM, Goulay-DufaÿS, et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of intranasal and intravenous dexmedetomidine[J]. Br J Anaesth, 2018, 120(5): 960-968. DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2017.11.100.