目的:观察七氟醚靶控用于低流量吸入麻醉维持的临床规律及血流动力学变化,寻求靶控下的药物量化指标。方法:选择60例20～60岁手术患者,随机分2组每组30例:P组(丙泊酚)常规实施全凭静脉TCI靶控麻醉;S组(七氟醚),实施低流量七氟醚靶控吸入麻醉(BIS值40)。分别记录诱导前(T1),插管后5(T2)、15(T3)、30(T4)45(T5)、60(T6)、90(T7)、120(T8)min时的、MBP、HR、;Sev组患者加记各个时点的七氟醚IT、ET的MAC值。结果:T2点两组均比T1 降低(Plt;0.05),S 组高于P组(Plt;0.05),两组比较T3至T7无显著性差异(Pgt;0.05);S 组T3 至T7 各点ET值无统计学差异,ET%:2.46,约1.4 MAC。结论:(1)七氟醚诱导较静脉麻醉诱导患者血流动力学稳定,(2)低流量七氟醚靶控吸入麻醉维持平稳,调控简便,效果良好。
Objective To identify, describe, and evaluate the evidence of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) interventions for cancer-related fatigue (CRF) using an evidence mapping approach. Methods The CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, Web of Science and Embase databases were electronically searched to collect studies on TCM interventions for CRF from inception to June 4, 2024. Evidence mapping was employed to present the characteristics of study populations, interventions, studies included in systematic review/meta-analysis (SR/MA), and conclusions. Results A total of 94 randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 17 SR/MA/network MA were included. The number of publications has shown an overall fluctuating upward trend in the past 15 years. The RCT included literature with a high focus on mixed cancers, involving a total of 51 TCM therapeutic measures, including 40 herbal treatments, 5 external TCM treatments, and 5 TCM integrative therapies. The outcome indicators were classified into 14 categories, with the most frequent ones being CRF scores, TCM syndrome scores, clinical efficacy, quality of life scores, immune function indicators, adverse event rates, and serum indicators. The SR/MA included 7-81 original studies with sample sizes of 551-7 547 cases, involving 5 intervention measures: herbal medicine (9 studies), moxibustion (3 studies), TCM injection (2 studies), moxibustion (2 studies), and acupuncture (1 study). The quality of RCT and SR/MA was generally low, and the evidence quality was low. Most studies showed that TCM interventions for CRF had potential efficacy, but there was still a lack of definitive clinical evidence. Conclusion The results suggest that TCM interventions for CRF have advantages but also problems. There is still a lack of high-quality research. More large-sample, multicenter RCT and high-quality SR/MA are needed to further explore the advantages of TCM interventions for CRF and provide strong support for the effectiveness and safety of TCM interventions for CRF.