• Xiuman Li and Lixiang Wang.
• Clinical Medical College, Hunan University of Medicine, Huaihua 418000, Hunan, China (Li XM); Department of Emergency, General Hospital of Chinese People's Armed Police Forces, Beijing 100039, China (Wang LX). Corresponding author: Wang Lixiang, Email: wjjjwlx@163.com.
• Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2017 Jul 1; 29 (7): 629-632.

ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of external abdominal aorta compression on circulation during anesthetic induction in elderly patients.MethodsA prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted. Patients with age of 60-75 years old, requiring a general anesthesia for non-abdominal surgery, and with II-III class of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification, and admitted to General Hospital of Chinese People's Armed Police Forces from January to April in 2017 were enrolled. They were divided into abdominal aorta pressure group and control group according to random number method, with 20 patients in each group. In both groups, anesthesia was induced with midazolam, propofol, fentanyl and cisatracurium, and was maintained with propofol, remifentanil and cisatracurium. After successful intubation, the anesthesia machine was changed into mechanical ventilation. The patients in abdominal aorta pressure group were given abdominal aorta pressure 1 minute after induction of general anesthesia with midazolam till 5 minutes after intubation. The mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) and blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) were observed before anesthesia induction, immediately after anesthesia induction, immediately after intubation, 5 minutes and 10 minutes after intubation, respectively. The incidence of hypotension or bradycardia, and usage of ephedrine or atropine were recorded.ResultsThere were no significant differences in MAP [mmHg (1 mmHg = 0.133 kPa): 83.6±4.7 vs. 82.9±4.7], HR (bpm: 67.3±5.9 vs. 65.9±5.7) and SpO2 (0.962±0.007 vs. 0.960±0.009) before anesthesia induction between abdominal aorta pressure group and control group (all P > 0.05). Immediately after anesthesia induction, the MAP and HR in control group were significantly decreased as compared with those before anesthesia induction [MAP (mmHg): 70.0±8.7 vs. 82.9±4.7, HR (bpm): 60.7±6.7 vs. 65.9±5.7, both P < 0.05], and they were also significantly lower than those of abdominal aorta pressure group [MAP (mmHg): 83.1±3.9, HR (bpm): 66.8±4.9, both P < 0.05]. Immediately after intubation, the MAP and HR in control group were significantly increased as compared with those immediately after anesthesia induction [MAP (mmHg): 78.9±7.9 vs. 70.0±8.7, HR (bpm): 67.3±2.7 vs. 60.7±6.7, both P < 0.05], but the changes in MAP and HR in abdominal aorta pressure group were not obvious. During the anesthesia induction period, there was no statistical difference in SpO2 change between the two groups. During induction of anesthesia, no adverse reaction was found in the abdominal aorta pressure group, but 4 patients with hypotension and 2 patients with bradycardia were found in the control group. Two patients with hypotension were treated with ephedrine, and 2 patients with bradycardia were treated with atropine.ConclusionsAnesthesia induction of elderly patients with abdominal aorta pressure can help maintain hemodynamic stability.

12 keywords...

hide…