目的 对比纳布啡联合环泊酚、纳布啡联合丙泊酚应用于老年患者无痛胃镜中的效果。方法 选取厦门市中医院2021年10月至2022年10月收治的180例老年患者（均行无痛胃肠镜检查）为研究对象,按照随机数表法分组,其中A组90例患者给予纳布啡联合环泊酚,B组90例患者给予纳布啡联合丙泊酚,对比两组患者麻醉相关指标、血流动力学、围术期不良反应。结果 两组患者诱导量、诱导时间、追加次数、总追加量、苏醒时间、恢复室停留时间对比差异均无统计学意义（t=1.486、0.830、1.157、0.941、0.906、1.403,均P>0.05）;重复测量方差分析结果显示,分组因素间收缩压（SBP）（F=30.019,P<0.001）、心率（HR）（F=282.057,P<0.001）、SpO₂（F=64.518,P<0.001）、;时间因素SBP（F=21.780,P<0.001）、HR（F=345.118,P<0.001）、SpO₂（F=41.762,P<0.001）;分组与时间交互时间因素SBP（F=12.941,P<0.001）、HR（F=193.295,P<0.001）、SpO₂（F=13.546,P<0.001）,差异均有统计学意义。折线图直观显示,A组患者SBP、HR、SpO₂、较B组低。;A组患者围术期不良反应发生率（20.00%）低于B组患者（56.67%）（χ²=25.593,P<0.001）。结论 两种麻醉方案应用于老年无痛胃肠镜,麻醉效果相近,环泊酚复合纳布啡血流动力学更稳定,且围术期不良反应的发生率较低。

Objective To compare the effects of nalbuphine combined with ciprofol and nalbuphine combined with propofol on painless gastroscopy in elderly patients. Methods A total of 180 elderly patients（all underwent painless gastroscopy）admitted to Xiamen Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital from October 2021 to October 2022 were selected as the study subjects．They were randomly divided into groups using a random number table method．Among them,90 patients in Group A were given a combination of nalbuphine and ciprofol,while 90 patients in Group B were given a combination of nalbuphine and propofol．Anesthesia related indicators,hemodynamics,and perioperative adverse reactions were compared between the two groups．There was no statistically significant difference in the induction amount,induction time,number of additional times,total additional amount,awakening time,and recovery room stay time between the two groups of patients（t=1.486,0.830,1.157,0.941,0.906,1.403,all P>0.05）．The results of repeated measures analysis of variance showed that there were statistically significant differences among the grouping factors,including SBP（F=30.019,P<0.001）,HR（F=282.057,P<0.001）,SpO₂（F=64.518,P<0.001）,time factors SBP（F=21.780,P<0.001）,HR（F=345．118,P<0.001）,SpO₂（F=41.762,P<0.001）,and interaction factors SBP（F=12.941,P<0.001）,HR（F=193.295,P<0.001）,and SpO₂（F=13.546,P<0.001）．The line chart visually shows that the SBP,HR,SpO₂ of Group A patients were lower than those of Group B．The incidence of perioperative adverse reactions in Group A patients（20.00%）was lower than that in Group B patients（56.67%）（χ²=25.593,P<0.001）. Conclusions The two anesthesia regimens used for elderly painless gastroscopy have similar anesthesia effects,with more stable hemodynamics of ciprofol combined with nalbuphine,and a lower incidence of perioperative adverse reactions．

目的 比较甲苯磺酸瑞马唑仑和丙泊酚在超声胃镜检查中的有效性和安全性。方法 采用随机对照的研究方法,选择接受超声胃镜病人60例,分为观察组(29例)和对照组(31例)。观察组采用甲苯磺酸瑞马唑仑麻醉,对照组采用丙泊酚。观察麻醉过程中不同时点的血流动力学指标、改良警觉/镇静(MOAA/S)评分各时刻的变化、苏醒及离室时间、围术期不良事件。结果 观察组的血流动力学影响更小;观察组可进入足够的镇静深度,而对照组的镇静程度更深;2组起效时间相似,且迅速苏醒而离室,但在苏醒及离室时间方面观察组稍短;不良事件对照组高于观察组。结论 甲苯磺酸瑞马唑仑应用于无痛超声胃镜检查,其对血流动力学影响小,能产生足够的镇静深度,能使患者迅速苏醒,且不良事件发生率低,总体有效性和安全性优于丙泊酚。

Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosilate and propofol in painless ultrasonic gastroscopy. Methods In a randomized, single-blind controlled study, 60 patients undergoing ultrasonic gastroscopy were selected and divided into observation group (31 cases) and control group (29 cases). Observation group was anesthetized with remimazolam tosilate, while control group was anesthetized with propofol. Two groups' hemodynamic index, perioperative adverse events, changes of MOAA/S score, awakening and departure time were observed at different time points during anesthesia. Results The observation group had less changes on hemodynamics. The observation group had enough depth of sedation, while the control group had a deeper degree of sedation. The onset time of the two groups was similar and both awoke quickly and left, but the awakening time and leaving time in the observation group were slightly shorter. Adverse events in the control group were more than those in the observation group. Conclusions Remimazolam tosilate for painless ultrasonic gastroscopy had little effect on hemodynamics, which can generate enough depth of sedation, and make patients wake up quickly. In addition, the incidence of its adverse events was low, and the overall effectiveness and safety were superior to those of propofol.