RESUMEN
Objective Discussing the clinical features, early diagnosis and therapeutic methods of aortic dissection (AD). Methods We analyzed and concluded the clinical datum of 33 AD patients in our hospital. Results The rate of male to female was 5.6 to 1 among all patients, average age 60, hypertension accounted for 81.8 percent. There were 26 patients (78.8 percent) suffered an acute pain, of who 22 patients got a pain in anterior chest.There were 22 of 26 patients diagnosed AD through echocardiography, 20 and 11 patients confirmed AD by MRI or CT respectively among all 33 patients. 13 patients had abnormal ECG, 10 ST-T segment changed, 12 left ventricular hypertrophy or hyper-voltage. Hypertension patients were treated through a infusion of nitroglycerin or nitroprusside by intervenous drop or by vein pump firstly to decend systolic blood pressure to the level of 100~120 mmHg and heart rate to 60~70 bpm,combining with the use of beta blocker, calcium antagonist and rennin- angiotensin inhibitor. 27 patients’ pain alleviated gradually even disappeared after controling their blood pressure, whose state of illness became to stable. 2 persons did the operation of aortic replacement in emergency. 6 persons died for aortic dissection broken in one week or one month. Conclusions The clinical manifestations of AD are complex, and the rate of false or leak diagnosis is high. Radiology studies including echocardiography, MRI or CT may be very important to enhance the ability of diagnosing AD early and to guide the treatment. Taking medical treatment is primary in emergency. Operating the replacement of aorta is an effective measure to treat AD.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: This study was performed to evaluate the usefulness of propofol in radiology studies by comparing propofol sedation with midazolam for patients who do not comply with their doctor's requests and need an injection of a sedative to be treated for a safe and quick recovery without complications. METHODS: Among adult patients who were admitted and checked using CT and MRI in our emergency medical center from February 2001 to August 2001, the patients who required sedation because of the lack of cooperation with ER doctors were studied. Of 49 patients, 23 patients (Group M) were injected with midazolam, and 26 patients (Group P) were injected with propofol. RESULTS: In both groups, the systolic BP and the diastolic BP decreased, but group P's BP decreased more than group M's (p<0.05). In group M, the decrease of SPO2 w a s statistically significant, but neither of the groups required emergency care. Although, Group M didn't require emergency care for SpO2, they did require more emergency care for apnea than Group P did. Group P's time required for an examination to be performed was shorter than group M's. Group P's duration for occurrence of movement was shorter than Group M's, but this difference was not statistically significant. Regardless of which sedative was used, there was no difference in the satisfaction of the radiology technician with regards to group M and group P. CONCLUSION: When the patients were injected with a lowdosage of propofol, they showed effects similar to those observed in patients in injected with midazolam, and there were no complications that required emergency care. The usage of propofol is thought to be a good choice, except for contraindications, for short-time radiology examinations.