Literature DB >> 15166553

Pharmacodynamic interaction between propofol and remifentanil regarding hypnosis, tolerance of laryngoscopy, bispectral index, and electroencephalographic approximate entropy.

Thomas W Bouillon1, Jörgen Bruhn, Lucian Radulescu, Corina Andresen, Thomas J Shafer, Carol Cohane, Steven L Shafer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this investigation was to describe the pharmacodynamic interaction between propofol and remifentanil for probability of no response to shaking and shouting, probability of no response to laryngoscopy, Bispectral Index (BIS), and electroencephalographic approximate entropy (AE).
METHODS: Twenty healthy volunteers received either propofol or remifentanil alone and then concurrently with a fixed concentration of remifentanil or propofol, respectively, via a target-controlled infusion. Responses to shaking and shouting and to laryngoscopy were assessed multiple times after allowing for plasma effect site equilibration. The raw electroencephalogram and BIS were recorded throughout the study, and AE was calculated off-line. Response surfaces were fit to the clinical response data using logistic regression or hierarchical response models. Response surfaces were also estimated for BIS and AE. Surfaces were visualized using three-dimensional rotations. Model parameters were estimated with NONMEM.
RESULTS: Remifentanil alone had no appreciable effect on response to shaking and shouting or response to laryngoscopy. Propofol could ablate both responses. Modest remifentanil concentrations dramatically reduced the concentrations of propofol required to ablate both responses. The hierarchical response surface described the data better than empirical logistic regression. BIS and AE are more sensitive to propofol than to remifentanil.
CONCLUSIONS: Remifentanil alone is ineffective at ablating response to stimuli but demonstrates potent synergy with propofol. BIS and AE values corresponding to 95% probability of ablating response are influenced by the combination of propofol and remifentanil to achieve this endpoint, with higher propofol concentrations producing lower values for BIS and AE.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15166553     DOI: 10.1097/00000542-200406000-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesthesiology        ISSN: 0003-3022            Impact factor:   7.892


  42 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

Review 2.  Population pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of anesthetics.

Authors:  Erik Olofsen; Albert Dahan
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2005-10-05       Impact factor: 4.009

3.  Monitoring the nociception level: a multi-parameter approach.

Authors:  Nir Ben-Israel; Mark Kliger; Galit Zuckerman; Yeshayahu Katz; Ruth Edry
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2013-07-09       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 4.  Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling in anaesthesia.

Authors:  Pedro L Gambús; Iñaki F Trocóniz
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.335

5.  Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic model of propofol externally validated in children.

Authors:  Byung-Moon Choi; Hyun-Gu Lee; Hyo-Jin Byon; Soo-Han Lee; Eun-Kyung Lee; Hee-Soo Kim; Gyu-Jeong Noh
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2015-02-28       Impact factor: 2.745

6.  Administration of anesthetic drugs according to pharmacological principles: are we heading in the right direction?

Authors:  Hugo E M Vereecke
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2019-08-16       Impact factor: 2.502

7.  Comparison of the qCON and qNOX indices for the assessment of unconsciousness level and noxious stimulation response during surgery.

Authors:  Umberto Melia; Eva Gabarron; Mercé Agustí; Nuria Souto; Patricia Pineda; Joan Fontanet; Montserrat Vallverdu; Erik Weber Jensen; Pedro Gambus
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 2.502

8.  Patient-Specific Classification of ICU Sedation Levels From Heart Rate Variability.

Authors:  Sunil B Nagaraj; Siddharth Biswal; Emily J Boyle; David W Zhou; Lauren M McClain; Ednan K Bajwa; Sadeq A Quraishi; Oluwaseun Akeju; Riccardo Barbieri; Patrick L Purdon; M Brandon Westover
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 7.598

9.  Age-related variation in EEG complexity to photic stimulation: a multiscale entropy analysis.

Authors:  Tetsuya Takahashi; Raymond Y Cho; Tetsuhito Murata; Tomoyuki Mizuno; Mitsuru Kikuchi; Kimiko Mizukami; Hirotaka Kosaka; Koichi Takahashi; Yuji Wada
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-02-23       Impact factor: 3.708

10.  Performance of Surgical Stress Index during Sevoflurane-Fentanyl and Isoflurane-Fentanyl Anesthesia.

Authors:  S Mustola; T Parkkari; K Uutela; M Huiku; M Kymäläinen; J Toivonen
Journal:  Anesthesiol Res Pract       Date:  2010-04-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.