Literature DB >> 19820241

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

Ken B Johnson1, 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.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: We previously reported models that characterized the synergistic interaction between remifentanil and sevoflurane in blunting responses to verbal and painful stimuli. This preliminary study evaluated the ability of these models to predict a return of responsiveness during emergence from anesthesia and a response to tibial pressure when patients required analgesics in the recovery room. We hypothesized that model predictions would be consistent with observed responses. We also hypothesized that under non-steady-state conditions, accounting for the lag time between sevoflurane effect-site concentration (Ce) and end-tidal (ET) concentration would improve predictions.
METHODS: Twenty patients received a sevoflurane, remifentanil, and fentanyl anesthetic. Two model predictions of responsiveness were recorded at emergence: an ET-based and a Ce-based prediction. Similarly, 2 predictions of a response to noxious stimuli were recorded when patients first required analgesics in the recovery room. Model predictions were compared with observations with graphical and temporal analyses.
RESULTS: While patients were anesthetized, model predictions indicated a high likelihood that patients would be unresponsive (> or = 99%). However, after termination of the anesthetic, models exhibited a wide range of predictions at emergence (1%-97%). Although wide, the Ce-based predictions of responsiveness were better distributed over a percentage ranking of observations than the ET-based predictions. For the ET-based model, 45% of the patients awoke within 2 min of the 50% model predicted probability of unresponsiveness and 65% awoke within 4 min. For the Ce-based model, 45% of the patients awoke within 1 min of the 50% model predicted probability of unresponsiveness and 85% awoke within 3.2 min. Predictions of a response to a painful stimulus in the recovery room were similar for the Ce- and ET-based models. DISCUSSION: Results confirmed, in part, our study hypothesis; accounting for the lag time between Ce and ET sevoflurane concentrations improved model predictions of responsiveness but had no effect on predicting a response to a noxious stimulus in the recovery room. These models may be useful in predicting events of clinical interest but large-scale evaluations with numerous patients are needed to better characterize model performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19820241      PMCID: PMC2888734          DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181afe31c

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


  19 in total

1.  The effect of age on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of midazolam.

Authors:  S Albrecht; H Ihmsen; W Hering; G Geisslinger; J Dingemanse; H Schwilden; J Schüttler
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 6.875

Review 2.  Target-controlled drug delivery: progress toward an intravenous "vaporizer" and automated anesthetic administration.

Authors:  Talmage D Egan
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 7.892

3.  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 4.  Response surface modelling of drug interactions.

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

5.  Opioid-volatile anesthetic synergy: a response surface model with remifentanil and sevoflurane as prototypes.

Authors:  Sandeep C Manyam; Dhanesh K Gupta; Ken B Johnson; Julia L White; Nathan L Pace; Dwayne R Westenskow; Talmage D Egan
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 7.892

6.  Model-based administration of inhalation anaesthesia. 1. Developing a system model.

Authors:  J G Lerou; L H Booij
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 9.166

7.  Predictive accuracy of a model of volatile anesthetic uptake.

Authors:  R Ross Kennedy; Richard A French; Christopher Spencer
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 5.108

8.  Hypercapnic hyperventilation shortens emergence time from isoflurane anesthesia.

Authors:  Derek J Sakata; Nishant A Gopalakrishnan; Joseph A Orr; Julia L White; Dwayne R Westenskow
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 5.108

9.  Development and evaluation of a graphical anesthesia drug display.

Authors:  Noah D Syroid; James Agutter; Frank A Drews; Dwayne R Westenskow; Robert W Albert; Julio C Bermudez; David L Strayer; Hauke Prenzel; Robert G Loeb; Matthew B Weinger
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 7.892

10.  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.

Authors:  Ken B Johnson; Noah D Syroid; Dhanesh K Gupta; Sandeep C Manyam; Talmage D Egan; Jeremy Huntington; Julia L White; Diane Tyler; Dwayne R Westenskow
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 5.108

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling in anaesthesia.

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

2.  Drug interaction: focusing on response surface models.

Authors:  Soo-Il Lee
Journal:  Korean J Anesthesiol       Date:  2010-05-29

3.  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

4.  Paradox of age: older patients receive higher age-adjusted minimum alveolar concentration fractions of volatile anaesthetics yet display higher bispectral index values.

Authors:  Katherine Ni; Mary Cooter; Dhanesh K Gupta; Jake Thomas; Thomas J Hopkins; Timothy E Miller; Michael L James; Miklos D Kertai; Miles Berger
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2019-07-03       Impact factor: 9.166

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.