切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版) ›› 2026, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (03) : 268 -273. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-2015.2026.03.014

论著

瑞芬太尼联合咪达唑仑静脉麻醉对内镜黏膜下剥离术及内镜下黏膜切除术操作的影响
魏立国1,(), 翟浩宇2, 张英立1   
  1. 1300211 天津医科大学第二医院麻醉科
    2300211 天津医科大学第二医院消化内科
  • 收稿日期:2025-09-02 出版日期:2026-06-01
  • 通信作者: 魏立国

Influence of intravenous anesthesia with remifentanil combined with midazolam on the operation of endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection

Liguo Wei1,(), Haoyu Zhai2, Yingli Zhang1   

  1. 1Department of Anesthesiology, The Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin 300211, China
    2Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin 300211, China
  • Received:2025-09-02 Published:2026-06-01
  • Corresponding author: Liguo Wei
引用本文:

魏立国, 翟浩宇, 张英立. 瑞芬太尼联合咪达唑仑静脉麻醉对内镜黏膜下剥离术及内镜下黏膜切除术操作的影响[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2026, 16(03): 268-273.

Liguo Wei, Haoyu Zhai, Yingli Zhang. Influence of intravenous anesthesia with remifentanil combined with midazolam on the operation of endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Digestion and Medical Imageology(Electronic Edition), 2026, 16(03): 268-273.

目的

探讨瑞芬太尼联合咪达唑仑静脉麻醉对内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)/内镜下黏膜切除术(EMR)手术操作时间、内镜下操作精度及黏膜下注射扩散影像评估的影响。

方法

选取2023年1月至2025年1月于天津医科大学第二医院行ESD/EMR的100例患者作为研究对象,采用随机数字表法将患者分为对照组及观察组各50例。对照组予以丙泊酚联合瑞芬太尼静脉麻醉,观察组予以瑞芬太尼联合咪达唑仑静脉麻醉。比较两组患者的手术相关指标、内镜下操作精度、黏膜下注射扩散影像评估、麻醉前后血流动力学指标[平均动脉压(MAP)、心率(HR)]、血清应激指标[皮质醇、去甲肾上腺素(NE)、肾上腺素(E)]水平及不良反应发生率。

结果

观察组手术操作时间短于对照组(P<0.05)。观察组内镜下操作精度优良率及黏膜下注射扩散良好率均高于对照组(P<0.05)。麻醉后10 min、手术结束时,两组MAP、HR低于麻醉前,且观察组低于对照组(P<0.05);两组血清皮质醇、NE、E水平高于麻醉前,且观察组低于对照组(P<0.05)。观察组不良反应发生率低于对照组(P<0.05)。

结论

瑞芬太尼联合咪达唑仑静脉麻醉用于ESD/EMR,可缩短手术操作时间、提高内镜下操作精度、优化黏膜下注射扩散影像评估、稳定血流动力学指标、减轻机体应激反应,且安全性较高。

Objective

To explore the effects of intravenous anesthesia with remifentanil combined with midazolam on the operation time of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)/endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), the accuracy of endoscopic operation and the evaluation of submucosal injection diffusion imaging.

Methods

A total of 100 patients who underwent ESD/EMR in the Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University from January 2023 to January 2025 were selected, and the patients were divided into the control group and the observation group, each with 50 cases, by using the method of randomized numerical table. The control group was given propofol combined with remifentanil intravenous anesthesia, and the observation group was given remifentanil combined with midazolam intravenous anesthesia. The two groups were compared in terms of surgery-related indexes, endoscopic operation precision, submucosal injection diffusion image assessment, hemodynamic indexes [mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR)] before and after anesthesia, serum stress indexes [cortisol, norepinephrine (NE), epinephrine (E)] levels and the incidence of adverse reactions.

Results

The operation time of the observation group was shorter than that of the control group (P<0.05). The excellent rate of endoscopic operation precision and the good rate of submucosal injection diffusion in the observation group were higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). At 10 min after anesthesia and at the end of surgery, the MAP and HR of the two groups were lower than that before anesthesia, and the values of the observation group was lower than that of the control group (P<0.05). The serum cortisol, NE, and E levels in both groups were higher than those before anesthesia, and the levels in the observation group were lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions in the observation group was lower than that in the control group (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Remifentanil combined with midazolam intravenous anesthesia for ESD/EMR can shorten the surgical operation time, improve the endoscopic operation precision, optimize the submucosal injection diffusion image assessment, stabilize the hemodynamic indexes, and reduce the body's stress response, and has a higher safety profile.

表1 两组内镜下操作精度比较[例(%)]
表2 两组黏膜下注射扩散影像评估比较[例(%)]
表3 两组血流动力学指标水平比较(±s
表4 两组应激反应指标水平比较(±s
表5 两组不良反应比较[例(%)]
[1]
曾宪明, 吴妍, 谭瑞. 上消化道内镜黏膜下剥离术的围手术期镇静/麻醉管理[J]. 国际麻醉学与复苏杂志, 2023, 44(10): 1100-1104.
[2]
Meng ZW, Bishay K, Vaska M, et al. Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Versus Surgery or Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Metachronous Early Gastric Cancer: a Meta-analysis[J]. J Gastrointest Surg, 2023, 27(11): 2628-2639.
[3]
Radadiya D, Desai M, Patel H, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for Barrett's-associated neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature[J]. Endoscopy, 2024, 56(12): 940-954.
[4]
李大军, 杨静, 吴保健. 瑞芬太尼联合硬膜外麻醉在早期胃癌患者内镜黏膜切除术中的应用[J]. 四川解剖学杂志, 2022, 30(1): 51-53.
[5]
Takada J, Iwashita T, Otani K, et al. Comparison of Safety and Efficacy of Diazepam and Midazolam for Moderate Sedation during Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection[J]. Dig Dis, 2025;43(3): 280-288.
[6]
Zhou C, Zhang F, We Y. Efficacy of endoscopic mucosal resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors 10mm: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Ann Saudi Med, 2023, 43(3): 179-195.
[7]
Shahini E, Passera R, Lo Secco G, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection vs endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal sessile/non-polypoid lesions[J]. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol, 2022, 31(6): 835-847.
[8]
Mejia Perez LK, Yang D, Draganov PV, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs. endoscopic mucosal resection for early Barrett's neoplasia in the West: a retrospective study[J]. Endoscopy, 2022, 54(5): 439-446.
[9]
Hayat M, Azeem N, Bilal M. Colon Polypectomy with Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection[J]. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am, 2022, 32(2): 277-298.
[10]
Ge PS, Aihara H. Advanced Endoscopic Resection Techniques: Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection[J]. Dig Dis Sci, 2022, 67(5): 1521-1538.
[11]
宋世铎, 唐悠远, 朱新国. 胃结直肠内镜下黏膜切除术/内镜下黏膜剥离术穿孔手术治疗的临床分析[J]. 中华普通外科杂志, 2024, 39(11): 872-874.
[12]
孙海, 韩真, 裴国勇. 改良内镜黏膜切除术(EMR)和内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)在直肠神经内分泌肿瘤的应用及预后分析[J]. 现代消化及介入诊疗, 2023, 28(3): 358-363.
[13]
Grillot N, Lebuffe G, Huet O, et al. Effect of Remifentanil vs Neuromuscular Blockers During Rapid Sequence Intubation on Successful Intubation Without Major Complications Among Patients at Risk of Aspiration: A Randomized Clinical Trial[J]. JAMA, 2023, 329(1): 28-38.
[14]
王悠笛, 陈亮, 孙盈盈, 等. 环泊酚或丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼用于无痛纤维支气管镜检查的比较[J]. 临床麻醉学杂志, 2023, 39(10): 1050-1054.
[15]
Domínguez-Rodríguez A, Suero-Mendez C, Burillo-Putze G, et al. Midazolam versus morphine in acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: results of a multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled trial[J]. Eur J Heart Fail, 2022, 24(10): 1953-1962.
[16]
先德飞, 张乐, 曾义. 布托啡诺复合咪达唑仑和舒芬太尼适度镇静在鼾症患者胃镜检查的作用研究[J]. 四川医学, 2024, 45(3): 291-295.
[17]
冯兴龙, 蒲军成, 赵星, 等. 舒芬太尼联合瑞芬太尼麻醉诱导在内镜黏膜下剥离术中的应用[J]. 川北医学院学报, 2021, 36(12): 1593-1596.
[18]
李卫东, 李娟, 原忠伟. 瑞马唑仑与咪达唑仑对腹腔镜手术患者围手术期焦虑、认知功能及胃肠道功能影响[J]. 中国药物应用与监测, 2024, 21(6): 774-778.
[19]
杨婷, 强丽宁, 邓挚玺, 等. 瑞马唑仑复合瑞芬太尼在胃镜下黏膜剥离术治疗中的应用观察[J]. 山西医药杂志, 2022, 51(24): 2821-2824.
[20]
章冰玉, 任大力, 郭恩伟, 等. 咪达唑仑联合瑞芬太尼对多发伤患者炎症反应和预后的影响[J]. 创伤外科杂志, 2020, 22(8): 627-629.
[21]
杨远胡, 李树奇, 徐锋. 胃癌根治术患者采用舒芬太尼联合瑞芬太尼的麻醉效果及对应激反应的改善[J]. 中国现代普通外科进展, 2020, 23(4): 316-318.
[22]
司马靓杰, 苗亚飞, 麻黎斯, 等. 超声引导下双侧闭孔神经阻滞联合咪达唑仑静脉麻醉对膀胱癌手术患者血流动力学及苏醒质量的影响[J]. 实用癌症杂志, 2024, 39(6): 965-968, 976.
[1] 高美莹, 赵蕊, 郑海宁, 刘妍, 房立柱, 温朝阳. 应用超声向量血流成像技术评价健康成人股腘动脉壁剪切力[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2025, 22(12): 1123-1129.
[2] 高阳, 张立明. 外周灌注指数在新生儿领域的应用研究现状[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2025, 21(06): 628-633.
[3] 陈敏, 陈挺, 范杰, 陈霄. PTCSL与LCBDE对肝内胆管结石患者应激反应和结石清除率的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(06): 662-665.
[4] 闫红林, 任海强, 李京, 郝俊强, 王子康, 杨彦伟. 羟考酮在腹腔镜疝修补术患者中应用价值的回顾性研究[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(01): 42-47.
[5] 常人元, 雷涛, 王彤, 陈宇, 李志梅, 高欣, 周楠, 曹磊, 董艳芳, 刘静静. rt-PA剂量对中高危急性肺栓塞患者超声辅助置管溶栓期间肺动脉压和出血风险的影响[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2026, 19(01): 42-48.
[6] 田明威, 赵小淋, 任琴琴, 王芳, 李青霖, 王远大, 丁潇楠, 朱晗玉, 张冬. 自体动静脉内瘘功能障碍的血流动力学机制及干预策略研究进展[J/OL]. 中华肾病研究电子杂志, 2025, 14(06): 325-330.
[7] 牛菲菲, 郑全乐, 张亭亭, 张同乐, 李学天, 杨文启. 右美托咪定对慢性硬脑膜下血肿手术的效果研究[J/OL]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2025, 15(05): 288-292.
[8] 廖伟芋, 王仕斌, 赵建利. 纳布啡复合地佐辛多模式镇痛对结肠癌根治术患者镇痛效果及术后认知功能的影响[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2026, 16(03): 262-267.
[9] 石淑勤, 贾国法, 柯希权. 酚磺乙胺联合雷贝拉唑治疗溃疡性上消化道出血的临床疗效及对患者氧化应激反应的影响[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2026, 16(01): 31-35.
[10] 韩静, 李西羊, 张桂芝. 不同浓度罗哌卡因超声引导下腹横肌平面阻滞在结直肠癌术后镇痛中的效果对比[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2026, 16(01): 79-85.
[11] 张群青, 吴娟, 王妍. 肝硬化门静脉高压症患者肝脏血流动力学指标与门静脉压力梯度的相关性[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2025, 15(06): 616-620.
[12] 刘燕, 马亦旻. 消化道早癌患者内镜黏膜下剥离术后局部复发预测模型构建与验证[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2025, 15(06): 576-582.
[13] 刘安妮, 王怡宁. B型主动脉夹层无创影像评估新进展:血流动力学应用[J/OL]. 中华心脏与心律电子杂志, 2026, 14(01): 41-47.
[14] 宁波, 张嗣坤, 高飞, 令狐恩强, 施瑞华. 消化内镜机器人辅助系统对ESD的影响:一项基于动物实验的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华胃肠内镜电子杂志, 2026, 13(01): 34-44.
[15] 尚辉辉, 贾雯, 刘娇, 杨新, 王静. 两种内镜治疗方式在G1期直肠神经内分泌瘤中的疗效及预后分析[J/OL]. 中华胃肠内镜电子杂志, 2026, 13(01): 18-24.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?