Literature DB >> 18227302

An evaluation of remifentanil propofol response surfaces for loss of responsiveness, loss of response to surrogates of painful stimuli and laryngoscopy in patients undergoing elective surgery.

Ken B Johnson1, Noah D Syroid, Dhanesh K Gupta, Sandeep C Manyam, Talmage D Egan, Jeremy Huntington, Julia L White, Diane Tyler, Dwayne R Westenskow.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we explored how a set of remifentanil-propofol response surface interaction models developed from data collected in volunteers would predict responses to events in patients undergoing elective surgery. Our hypotheses were that these models would predict a patient population's loss and return of responsiveness and the presence or absence of a response to laryngoscopy and the response to pain after surgery.
METHODS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled. Anesthesia consisted of remifentanil and propofol infusions and fentanyl boluses. Loss and return of responsiveness, responses to laryngoscopy, and responses to postoperative pain were assessed in each patient. Model predictions were compared with observed responses.
RESULTS: The loss of responsiveness model predicted that patients would become unresponsive 2.4 +/- 2.6 min earlier than observed. At the time of laryngoscopy, the laryngoscopy model predicted an 89% probability of no response to laryngoscopy and 81% did not respond. During emergence, the loss of responsiveness model predicted return of responsiveness 0.6 +/- 5.1 min before responsiveness was observed. The mean probability of no response to pressure algometry was 23% +/- 35% when patients required fentanyl for pain control. DISCUSSION: This preliminary assessment of a series of remifentanil-propofol interaction models demonstrated that these models predicted responses to selected pertinent events during elective surgery. However, significant model error was evident during rapid changes in predicted effect-site propofol-remifentanil concentration pairs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18227302      PMCID: PMC3050649          DOI: 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181606c62

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesth Analg        ISSN: 0003-2999            Impact factor:   5.108


  23 in total

1.  Using front-end kinetics to optimize target-controlled drug infusions.

Authors:  Michael J Avram; Tom C Krejcie
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 7.892

2.  A response surface analysis of propofol-remifentanil pharmacodynamic interaction in volunteers.

Authors:  Steven E Kern; Guoming Xie; Julia L White; Talmage D Egan
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 7.892

Review 3.  Response surface modelling of drug interactions.

Authors:  Charles Minto; Jaap Vuyk
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.622

4.  Induction speed is not a determinant of propofol pharmacodynamics.

Authors:  Anthony G Doufas; Maryam Bakhshandeh; Andrew R Bjorksten; Steven L Shafer; Daniel I Sessler
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 7.892

5.  The influence of method of administration and covariates on the pharmacokinetics of propofol in adult volunteers.

Authors:  T W Schnider; C F Minto; P L Gambus; C Andresen; D B Goodale; S L Shafer; E J Youngs
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 7.892

6.  Quantification of pharmacodynamic interactions between dexmedetomidine and midazolam in the rat.

Authors:  C J Bol; J P Vogelaar; J P Tang; J W Mandema
Journal:  J Pharmacol Exp Ther       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 4.030

7.  The influence of age on propofol pharmacodynamics.

Authors:  T W Schnider; C F Minto; S L Shafer; P L Gambus; C Andresen; D B Goodale; E J Youngs
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 7.892

8.  Mixed-effects modeling of the intrinsic ventilatory depressant potency of propofol in the non-steady state.

Authors:  Thomas Bouillon; Joergen Bruhn; Lucian Radu-Radulescu; Corina Andresen; Carol Cohane; Steven L Shafer
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 7.892

9.  Propofol reduces perioperative remifentanil requirements in a synergistic manner: response surface modeling of perioperative remifentanil-propofol interactions.

Authors:  Martijn J Mertens; Erik Olofsen; Frank H M Engbers; Anton G L Burm; James G Bovill; Jaap Vuyk
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 7.892

10.  Population pharmacodynamics of midazolam administered by target controlled infusion in SICU patients after CABG surgery.

Authors:  J Somma; A Donner; K Zomorodi; R Sladen; J Ramsay; E Geller; S L Shafer
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 7.892

View more
  9 in total

1.  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

2.  Optimizing intraoperative administration of propofol, remifentanil, and fentanyl through pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic simulations to increase the postoperative duration of analgesia.

Authors:  Carl Tams; Noah Syroid; Terrie Vasilopoulos; Ken Johnson
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2019-03-12       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  An evaluation of remifentanil-sevoflurane response surface models in patients emerging from anesthesia: model improvement using effect-site sevoflurane concentrations.

Authors:  Ken B Johnson; Noah D Syroid; Dhanesh K Gupta; Sandeep C Manyam; Nathan L Pace; Cris D LaPierre; Talmage D Egan; Julia L White; Diane Tyler; Dwayne R Westenskow
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2009-10-09       Impact factor: 5.108

4.  Response surface model predictions of emergence and response to pain in the recovery room: An evaluation of patients emerging from an isoflurane and fentanyl anesthetic.

Authors:  Noah D Syroid; Ken B Johnson; Nathan L Pace; Dwayne R Westenskow; Diane Tyler; Frederike Brühschwein; Robert W Albert; Shelly Roalstad; Samuel Costy-Bennett; Talmage D Egan
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 5.108

5.  A previously published propofol-remifentanil response surface model does not predict patient response well in video-assisted thoracic surgery.

Authors:  Hsin-Yi Wang; Chien-Kun Ting; Jing-Yang Liou; Kun-Hui Chen; Mei-Young Tsou; Wen-Kuei Chang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.889

6.  Comparison of false-negative/positive results of intraoperative evoked potential monitoring between no and partial neuromuscular blockade in patients receiving propofol/remifentanil-based anesthesia during cerebral aneurysm clipping surgery: A retrospective analysis of 685 patients.

Authors:  Sung-Hoon Kim; Seok-Joon Jin; Myong-Hwan Karm; Young-Jin Moon; Hye-Won Jeong; Jae-Won Kim; Seung-Il Ha; Joung-Uk Kim
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 1.889

7.  A patient with intraoperative awareness history requiring high propofol effect-site concentrations for general anesthesia.

Authors:  Shinju Obara; Yoshie Noji; Takayuki Hasegawa; Chie Hanayama; Rieko Oishi; Masahiro Murakawa
Journal:  JA Clin Rep       Date:  2019-11-04

8.  JM-1232(-) and propofol, a new combination of hypnotics with short-acting and non-cumulative preferable properties.

Authors:  Saori Taharabaru; Takahiro Tamura; Michiko Higashi; Naoyuki Matsuda; Maiko Satomoto; Yushi U Adachi; Aiji Boku Sato; Masahiro Okuda
Journal:  Exp Anim       Date:  2020-10-16

9.  A Response Surface Model Exploration of Dosing Strategies in Gastrointestinal Endoscopies Using Midazolam and Opioids.

Authors:  Jing-Yang Liou; Chien-Kun Ting; Ming-Chih Hou; Mei-Yung Tsou
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.889

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.