BACKGROUND: Propofol is a common sedative hypnotic for the induction and maintenance of anesthesia. Clinicians typically moderate the dose of propofol or choose a different sedative hypnotic in the setting of severe intravascular volume depletion. Previous work has established that hemorrhagic shock influences both the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol in the rat. To investigate this further, the authors studied the influence of hemorrhagic shock on the pharmacology of propofol in a swine isobaric hemorrhage model. METHODS: After approval from the Animal Care Committee, 16 swine were randomly assigned to control and shock groups. The shock group was bled to a mean arterial blood pressure of 50 mmHg over a 20-min period and held there by further blood removal until 30 ml/kg of blood was removed. Propofol 200 microg. kg(-1). min(-1) was infused for 10 min to both groups. Arterial samples (15 from each animal) were collected at frequent intervals until 180 min after the infusion began and analyzed to determine drug concentration. Pharmacokinetic parameters for each group were estimated using a three-compartment model. The electroencephalogram Bispectral Index Scale was used as a measure of drug effect. The pharmacodynamics were characterized using a sigmoid inhibitory maximal effect model. RESULTS: The raw data demonstrated higher plasma propofol levels in the shock group. The pharmacokinetic analysis revealed slower intercompartmental clearances in the shock group. Hemorrhagic shock shifted the concentration effect relationship to the left, demonstrating a 2.7-fold decrease in the effect site concentration required to achieve 50% of the maximal effect in the Bispectral Index Scale. CONCLUSIONS: Hemorrhagic shock altered the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol. Changes in intercompartmental clearances and an increase in the potency of propofol suggest that less propofol would be required to achieve a desired drug effect during hemorrhagic shock.
BACKGROUND:Propofol is a common sedative hypnotic for the induction and maintenance of anesthesia. Clinicians typically moderate the dose of propofol or choose a different sedative hypnotic in the setting of severe intravascular volume depletion. Previous work has established that hemorrhagic shock influences both the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol in the rat. To investigate this further, the authors studied the influence of hemorrhagic shock on the pharmacology of propofol in a swine isobaric hemorrhage model. METHODS: After approval from the Animal Care Committee, 16 swine were randomly assigned to control and shock groups. The shock group was bled to a mean arterial blood pressure of 50 mmHg over a 20-min period and held there by further blood removal until 30 ml/kg of blood was removed. Propofol 200 microg. kg(-1). min(-1) was infused for 10 min to both groups. Arterial samples (15 from each animal) were collected at frequent intervals until 180 min after the infusion began and analyzed to determine drug concentration. Pharmacokinetic parameters for each group were estimated using a three-compartment model. The electroencephalogram Bispectral Index Scale was used as a measure of drug effect. The pharmacodynamics were characterized using a sigmoid inhibitory maximal effect model. RESULTS: The raw data demonstrated higher plasma propofol levels in the shock group. The pharmacokinetic analysis revealed slower intercompartmental clearances in the shock group. Hemorrhagic shock shifted the concentration effect relationship to the left, demonstrating a 2.7-fold decrease in the effect site concentration required to achieve 50% of the maximal effect in the Bispectral Index Scale. CONCLUSIONS:Hemorrhagic shock altered the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol. Changes in intercompartmental clearances and an increase in the potency of propofol suggest that less propofol would be required to achieve a desired drug effect during hemorrhagic shock.
Authors: Bo Liu; David M Pettigrew; Stephen Bates; Peter G Laitenberger; Gavin Troughton Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2012-01-01 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Talmage D Egan; Shinju Obara; Thomas E Jenkins; Sarah S Jaw-Tsai; Shanti Amagasu; Daniel R Cook; Scott C Steffensen; David T Beattie Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Theodoros T Xanthos; Xanthippi A Balkamou; Kostantinos I Stroumpoulis; Ioannis N Pantazopoulos; Georgios I Rokas; Georgios D Agrogiannis; Georgios T Troupis; Theano D Demestiha; Panagiotis N Skandalakis Journal: Comp Med Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 0.982
Authors: York A Zausig; Hendrik Busse; Dirk Lunz; Barbara Sinner; Wolfgang Zink; Bernhard M Graf Journal: Crit Care Date: 2009-09-08 Impact factor: 9.097