Literature DB >> 20063047

Nitrous oxide and isoflurane are synergistic with respect to amplitude and latency effects on sensory evoked potentials.

Tod Sloan1, H Sloan, J Rogers.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Combinations of anesthetic agents are frequently employed to produce the desired clinical effect. No systematic study has been conducted on the effect of the combination of nitrous oxide with a potent inhalational agent such as isoflurane on sensory evoked responses.
METHODS: Median nerve somatosensory evoked responses from the cervical and cortical regions (SSEP), auditory brainstem responses (ABR) and flash visual evoked responses (VEP) were tested in baboons. The latency and amplitude of the major response peaks were recorded at five proportionate mixtures of isoflurane (I) and nitrous oxide (N(2)O) (0.8% I only, 0.6% I/20% N(2)O, 0.4% I/40% N(2)O, 0.2% I/60% N(2)O, and 79% N(2)O only). A similar set of experiments were also conducted with 0.8% isoflurane and 0.6% halothane. All data were normalized to 0.8% isoflurane only and Dunnett's method of analysis used to determine which mixtures deviated from the reference values with 0.8% isoflurane.
RESULTS: Several combinations of isoflurane with nitrous oxide produced increases in latency (ABR: wave V, VEP, SSEP cervical and cortical) and decreases in amplitude (ABR: amplitude ratio V/I, VEP, cortical SSEP) from that expected if the effects were additive. No deviations were observed with combinations of isoflurane and halothane.
CONCLUSIONS: These studies are consistent with drug synergy when isoflurane is mixed with nitrous oxide. This suggests that if these agents are considered for anesthesia when sensory evoked responses are to be monitored that the combination of these agents may produce more amplitude and latency changes than expected from a proportionate mixture of the individual agents.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20063047     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-009-9219-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   2.502


  61 in total

Review 1.  Anesthesia for intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring of the spinal cord.

Authors:  Tod B Sloan; Eric J Heyer
Journal:  J Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 2.177

2.  Somatosensory and auditory evoked responses recorded simultaneously: differential effects of nitrous oxide and isoflurane.

Authors:  C Thornton; P Creagh-Barry; C Jordan; N P Luff; C J Doré; M Henley; D E Newton
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 9.166

3.  Inhaled anesthetics do not combine to produce synergistic effects regarding minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration in rats.

Authors:  Edmond I Eger; Michael Tang; Mark Liao; Michael J Laster; Ken Solt; Pamela Flood; Andrew Jenkins; Douglas Raines; Jan F Hendrickx; Steven L Shafer; Tanifuji Yasumasa; James M Sonner
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 5.108

4.  Anesthetic drug interactions: an insight into general anesthesia--its mechanism and dosing strategies.

Authors:  P S Glass
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 7.892

5.  Auditory evoked response, median frequency and 95% spectral edge during anaesthesia with desflurane and nitrous oxide.

Authors:  R M Sharpe; D Nathwani; S K Pal; M D Brunner; C Thornton; C J Doré; D E Newton
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 9.166

6.  Additive effects of anesthetics and theories of anesthesia.

Authors:  C A DiFazio; R E Brown; C G Ball; C G Heckel; S S Kennedy
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1972-01       Impact factor: 7.892

7.  Anesthetic potency (MAC) of nitrous oxide in the dog, cat, and stump-tail monkey.

Authors:  E P Steffey; J R Gillespie; J D Berry; E I Eger; E S Munson
Journal:  J Appl Physiol       Date:  1974-05       Impact factor: 3.531

8.  Isoflurane induces dose-dependent changes of thalamic somatosensory information transfer.

Authors:  O Detsch; C Vahle-Hinz; E Kochs; M Siemers; B Bromm
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  1999-05-22       Impact factor: 3.252

9.  The effect of anaesthetic agents on cerebral cortical responses in the rat.

Authors:  A Angel; D A Gratton
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  1982-08       Impact factor: 8.739

10.  Effects of enflurane on brainstem auditory evoked responses in humans.

Authors:  M Y Dubois; S Sato; J Chassy; T E Macnamara
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1982-11       Impact factor: 5.108

View more
  6 in total

1.  Effects of different etomidate doses on intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring.

Authors:  X-L Meng; L-W Wang; W Zhao; X-Y Guo
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2014-07-25       Impact factor: 1.568

Review 2.  Optic nerve monitoring.

Authors:  Paul Schumann; Horst Kokemüller; Frank Tavassol; Daniel Lindhorst; Juliana Lemound; Harald Essig; Martin Rücker; Nils-Claudius Gellrich
Journal:  Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr       Date:  2013-05-01

3.  Effects of the α₂-adrenergic receptor agonist dexmedetomidine on neural, vascular and BOLD fMRI responses in the somatosensory cortex.

Authors:  Mitsuhiro Fukuda; Alberto L Vazquez; Xiaopeng Zong; Seong-Gi Kim
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2012-10-29       Impact factor: 3.386

4.  Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spine surgery with total intravenous anesthesia or balanced anesthesia with 3% desflurane.

Authors:  Tod B Sloan; J Richard Toleikis; Sandra C Toleikis; Antoun Koht
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2014-03-19       Impact factor: 2.502

5.  Analysis of the visual evoked potential in anesthesia with sevoflurane and chloral hydrate : (Variability of amplitudes, latencies and morphology of VEP with the depth of anesthesia).

Authors:  A M Ghita; D Parvu; R Sava; L Georgescu; L Zagrean
Journal:  J Med Life       Date:  2013-06-25

6.  Gas Anesthesia Impairs Peripheral Auditory Sensitivity in Barn Owls (Tyto alba).

Authors:  Nadine Thiele; Christine Köppl
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2018-11-12
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.