Literature DB >> 10383543

Pharmacokinetics, induction of anaesthesia and safety characteristics of propofol 6% SAZN vs propofol 1% SAZN and Diprivan-10 after bolus injection.

C A Knibbe1, H J Voortman, L P Aarts, P F Kuks, R Lange, H J Langemeijer, M Danhof.   

Abstract

AIMS: In order to avoid the potential for elevated serum lipid levels as a consequence of long term sedation with propofol, a formulation of propofol 6% in Lipofundin(R) MCT/LCT 10% (Propofol 6% SAZN) has been developed. The pharmacokinetics, induction of anaesthesia and safety characteristics of this new formulation were investigated after bolus injection and were compared with the commercially available product (propofol 1% in Intralipid(R) 10%, Diprivan-10) and propofol 1% in Lipofundin(R) MCT/LCT 10% (Propofol 1% SAZN).
METHODS: In a randomised double-blind study, 24 unpremedicated female patients received an induction dose of propofol of 2.5 mg kg-1 over 60 s which was followed by standardized balanced anaesthesia. The patients were randomized to receive propofol as Propofol 6% SAZN, Propofol 1% SAZN or Diprivan-10.
RESULTS: For all formulations the pharmacokinetics were adequately described by a tri-exponential equation, as the propofol concentrations collected early after the injection suggested an additional initial more rapid phase. The average values for clearance (CL), volume of distribution at steady-state (Vd,ss ), elimination half-life (t1/2,z ) and distribution half-life (t1/2, lambda2) observed in the three groups were 32+/-1.5 ml kg-1 min-1, 2. 0+/-0.18 l kg-1, 95+/-5.6 min and 3.4+/-0.20 min, respectively (mean+/-s.e.mean, n=24) and no significant differences were noted between the three formulations (P >0.05). The half-life of the additional initial distribution phase (t1/2,lambda1 ) in all subjects ranged from 0.1 to 0.6 min. Anaesthesia was induced successfully and uneventfully in all cases, and the quality of induction was adequate in all 24 patients. The induction time did not vary between the three formulations and the average induction time observed in the three groups was 51+/-1.3 s which corresponded to an induction dose of propofol of 2.1+/-0.06 mg kg-1 (mean+/-s.e. mean, n=24). The percentage of patients reporting any pain on injection did not vary between the formulations and was 17% for the three groups. No postoperative phlebitis or other venous sequelae of the vein used for injection occurred in any of the patients at recovery of anaesthesia nor after 24 h.
CONCLUSIONS: From the above results, we conclude that the alteration of the type of emulsion and the higher concentration of propofol in the new parenteral formulation of propofol does not affect the pharmacokinetics and induction characteristics of propofol, compared with the currently available product. Propofol 6% SAZN can be administered safely and has the advantage of a reduction of the load of fat and emulsifier which may be preferable when long term administration of propofol is required.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10383543      PMCID: PMC2014258          DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2125.1999.00942.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol        ISSN: 0306-5251            Impact factor:   4.335


  30 in total

1.  Influence of different fat emulsion-based intravenous formulations on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol.

Authors:  E H Cox; C A Knibbe; V S Koster; M W Langemeijer; E E Tukker; R Lange; P F Kuks; H J Langemeijer; L Lie-A-Huen; M Danhof
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 2.  Drug pharmacokinetics in the postoperative period.

Authors:  J Elfstrom
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1979 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 6.447

3.  Effect of speed of injection on induction of anaesthesia using propofol.

Authors:  G Rolly; L Versichelen; L Huyghe; H Mungroop
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1985-08       Impact factor: 9.166

4.  Influence of sample site on blood concentrations of ICI 35868.

Authors:  E Major; C Aun; P M Yate; T M Savege; A J Verniquet; H Adam; E J Douglas
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1983-05       Impact factor: 9.166

5.  New physiologically based methods for calculating the apparent steady-state volume of distribution in pharmacokinetic studies.

Authors:  W L Chiou
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol       Date:  1982-06

6.  ICI 35868 (Diprivan): a new intravenous induction agent. A comparison with methohexitone.

Authors:  D V Rutter; M Morgan; J Lumley; R Owen
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  1980-12       Impact factor: 6.955

7.  An adverse reaction to the administration of disoprofol (Diprivan).

Authors:  L P Briggs; R S Clarke; J Watkins
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  1982-11       Impact factor: 6.955

8.  Pharmacokinetic evaluation of ICI 35 868 in man. Single induction doses with different rates of injection.

Authors:  H K Adam; L P Briggs; M Bahar; E J Douglas; J W Dundee
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1983-02       Impact factor: 9.166

9.  Dose requirements of ICI 35,868 (propofol, 'Diprivan') in a new formulation for induction of anaesthesia.

Authors:  G C Cummings; J Dixon; N H Kay; J P Windsor; E Major; M Morgan; J W Sear; A A Spence; D K Stephenson
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  1984-12       Impact factor: 6.955

10.  Pharmacology of an emulsion formulation of ICI 35 868.

Authors:  J B Glen; S C Hunter
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1984-06       Impact factor: 9.166

View more
  7 in total

1.  Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol in morbidly obese patients.

Authors:  Simone van Kralingen; Jeroen Diepstraten; Mariska Y M Peeters; Vera H M Deneer; Bert van Ramshorst; René J Wiezer; Eric P A van Dongen; Meindert Danhof; Catherijne A J Knibbe
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 6.447

2.  A bodyweight-dependent allometric exponent for scaling clearance across the human life-span.

Authors:  Chenguang Wang; Mariska Y M Peeters; Karel Allegaert; Heleen J Blussé van Oud-Alblas; Elke H J Krekels; Dick Tibboel; Meindert Danhof; Catherijne A J Knibbe
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.200

3.  Preparation and anesthetic properties of propofol microemulsions in rats.

Authors:  Timothy E Morey; Jerome H Modell; Dushyant Shekhawat; Todd Grand; Dinesh O Shah; Nikolaus Gravenstein; Susan P McGorray; Donn M Dennis
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 7.892

4.  The allometric exponent for scaling clearance varies with age: a study on seven propofol datasets ranging from preterm neonates to adults.

Authors:  Chenguang Wang; Karel Allegaert; Mariska Y M Peeters; Dick Tibboel; Meindert Danhof; Catherijne A J Knibbe
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.335

5.  Pain on injection with microemulsion propofol.

Authors:  Ji-Yeon Sim; Soo-Han Lee; Do-Yang Park; Jin-Ah Jung; Kyoung-Ho Ki; Dong-Ho Lee; Gyu-Jeong Noh
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2008-12-10       Impact factor: 4.335

6.  Pharmacokinetics and effects of propofol 6% for short-term sedation in paediatric patients following cardiac surgery.

Authors:  Catherijne A J Knibbe; Gitte Melenhorst-de Jong; Maaike Mestrom; Carin M A Rademaker; Allart F A Reijnvaan; Klaas P Zuideveld; Paul F M Kuks; Hans van Vught; Meindert Danhof
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 4.335

7.  An integrated population pharmacokinetic meta-analysis of propofol in morbidly obese and nonobese adults, adolescents, and children.

Authors:  J Diepstraten; V Chidambaran; S Sadhasivam; H J Blussé van Oud-Alblas; T Inge; B van Ramshorst; E P A van Dongen; A A Vinks; C A J Knibbe
Journal:  CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol       Date:  2013-09-11
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.